20190116 : Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions ( Jan 16, 2019 , profile.theguardian.com )
...If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a
pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy
Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect
the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent
hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your
protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and
repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't
possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
A way to capture this change was thinking in terms of the traditional task of journalists to
interview or consult a variety of sources to determine was is truth or true. The shift
gradually became one of now interviewing or consulting various sources and reporting those
opinions.
Old-school journalism was like being assigned the task of finding out what "1+1 =?" and the
task was to report the answer was "1."
Now the task would be to report that "Some say it is 1, some say it is 2, some say it is
3."
There is nothing wrong with hierarchy in and of itself. After all, is seniority to mean
nothing? Is demonstrated competence meaningless? Should an individual's efforts to build
skill sets be treated as equivalent to the couch potato's efforts to build up an epic Body
Mass Index (BMI)? Should notions of winners and losers be banned from athletic competitions
and sporting events, along with any associated prizes? Everybody gets a trophy whether they
run the race or not?
As I understand it there were plenty of routes through life in the Soviet Union in which
people could distinguish themselves, perhaps more than in the West. There were plenty of ways
to rise in society's hierarchy. None of those routes resulted in fabulous and opulent wealth,
but if some did then the society would necessarily be able to afford fewer such routes.
The only problems with hierarchy in society is if the process of rising in it is corrupt
(being born into wealth, for instance) or if the span between the bottom and the top of that
hierarchy is larger than what the population considers fair.
"...The only problems with hierarchy in society is if the process of rising in it is
corrupt (being born into wealth, for instance) or if the span between the bottom and the top
of that hierarchy is larger than what the population considers fair."
That is true, the only problem being (for the lower classes) that by the time the gap
becomes evident to all, mechanisms of 'law' and power (plus bread and circuses) have been set
in place to prevent or repress the necessary changes from happening from below. This is
evident to the US populace as the few who saw it coming and protested could not rouse enough
support when it could have mattered. We looked and still look for helpers among the children
of the hierarchs because those are the only ones who can work within the current system. So
far, such are few, if they exist at all. But we saw with FDR it only takes one or two. (I
don't know if you saw my previous post that finance was not the governmental powerhouse it
has become in FDR's time. First they came for the legislators!!)
I still have hope that the system in the US will of its own weight become unweildly. There
are already signs of that happening in the increasing inability of US powermongers to have
their way on the world stage, and in their search for ephemeral 'boltholes'. And while they
are still able to inflict harm on others and do so with reckless abandon, I do not believe
they are ready to risk their own skins or those of their near and dear - or the fortunes they
have staked everything to gain. My hope is that even that damaging ability will peter out as
climate change necessities force a refocus on what actually threatens said skins and
fortunes.
"... The American people and most of the world bought into the lies and half-truths because they wanted to believe the fiction they were being spoon fed by the White House, but is there a whole lot of difference between what the US government did against Iraq in 2003 and what Hitler's government did in 1939 when it falsely claimed that Polish troops had attacked Germany? Was subsequent torture by the Gestapo any different than torture by a contractor working for Washington? ..."
"... A friend of mine recently commented that honest men who were formerly part of the United States government do not subsequently get hired by lobbying firms or obtain television contracts and "teaching" positions at prestigious universities. ..."
"... If the marketplace is anything to go by Feith and Tenet are running neck-and-neck on secondary book exchanges as George also can be had for $.01. ..."
"... The historian Livy summed up the significance of his act, writing "It is worthwhile for those who disdain all human things for money, and who suppose that there is no room either for great honor or virtue, except where wealth is found, to listen to his story." ..."
"... "Power is always dangerous. Power attracts the worst and corrupts the best." ..."
"... senior government officials and politicians routinely expect to be generously rewarded for their service and never held accountable for their failures and misdeeds ..."
"... One thing for sure about the Washington elite, you never have to say you're sorry. ..."
The United States already has by far the per capita largest prison population of any developed country but I am probably one of
the few Americans who on this Independence Day would like to see a lot more people in prison, mostly drawn from politicians and senior
bureaucrats who have long believed that their status makes them untouchable, giving them license to steal and even to kill. The sad
fact is that while whistleblowers have been imprisoned for revealing government criminality, no one in the federal bureaucracy has
ever actually been punished for the crimes of torture, kidnapping and assassination committed during the George W. Bush and Barack
H. Obama presidencies.
Why is accountability important? After the Second World War, the victorious allies believed it was important to establish responsibility
for the crimes that had been committed by officials of the Axis powers. The judges at the Nuremberg Trials called the initiation
of a war of aggression the ultimate war crime because it inevitably unleashed so many other evils. Ten leading Nazis were executed
at Nuremberg and ninety-three Japanese officials at similar trials staged in Asia, including several guilty of waterboarding. Those
who were not executed for being complicit in the actual launching of war were tried for torture of both military personnel and civilians
and crimes against humanity, including the mass killing of civilians as well as of soldiers who had surrendered or been captured.
No matter how one tries to avoid making comparisons between 1939 and 2015, the American invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression,
precisely the type of conflict that the framework of accountability provided by Nuremberg was supposed to prevent in the years after
1946. High level US government officials knew that Iraq represented no threat to the United States but they nevertheless described
an imminent danger posed by Saddam Hussein in the most graphic terms, replete with weapons of mass destruction, armed drones flying
across the Atlantic, terrorists being unleashed against the homeland, and mushroom clouds on the horizon. The precedent of Iraq,
even though it was an abject failure, has led to further military action against Libya and Syria to bring about "regime change" as
well as a continuing conflict in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the US has been waging a largely secret "long war" against terrorists employing torture and secret prisons. The
American people and most of the world bought into the lies and half-truths because they wanted to believe the fiction they were being
spoon fed by the White House, but is there a whole lot of difference between what the US government did against Iraq in 2003 and
what Hitler's government did in 1939 when it falsely claimed that Polish troops had attacked Germany? Was subsequent torture by the
Gestapo any different than torture by a contractor working for Washington?
Many Americans would now consider the leading figures in the Bush Administration aided and abetted by many enablers in congress
from both political parties to be unindicted war criminals. Together they ignited a global conflict that is still running strong
fourteen years later with a tally of more than 7,000 dead Americans and a minimum of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Afghans,
Libyans, Somalis and Syrians.
War breeds more war, due largely to the fact that guilty parties in Washington who piggyback on the prevailing narrative move
onward and upward, rewarded in this life even if not necessarily so in the hereafter. A friend of mine recently commented that
honest men who were formerly part of the United States government do not subsequently get hired by lobbying firms or obtain television
contracts and "teaching" positions at prestigious universities. Though not 100% accurate as I know at least a couple of honorable
former senior officials who wound up teaching, it would seem to be a generalization that has considerable validity. The implication
is that many senior government officials ascend to their positions based on being accommodating and "political" rather than being
honest and they continue to do the same when they switch over to corporate America or the equally corrupted world of academia.
I thought of my friend's comment when I turned on the television a week ago to be confronted by the serious, somewhat intense
gaze of Michael Morell,
warning about the danger that ISIS will strike the US over the Fourth of July weekend. Morell, a former senior CIA official,
is in the terror business. He had no evidence whatsoever that terrorists were planning an attack and should have realized that maneuvering
the United States into constantly going on alert based on empty threats is precisely what militant groups tend to do.
When not fronting as a handsomely paid national security consultant for the CBS television network Morell is employed by Beacon
Global Strategies as a Senior Counselor, presumably warning well-heeled clients to watch out for terrorists. His lifestyle and substantial
emoluments depend on people being afraid of terrorism so they will turn to an expert like him and ask serious questions that he will
answer in a serious way suggesting that Islamic militants could potentially bring about some kind of global apocalypse.
Morell, a torture apologist, also has a book out that he wants to sell, positing somewhat ridiculously that he and his former
employer had been fighting The Great War of Our Time against Islamic terrorists, something comparable to the World Wars of the past
century, hence the title. Morell needs to take some valium and relax. He would also benefit from a little introspection regarding
the bad guys versus good guys narrative that he is peddling. His credentials as a warrior are somewhat suspect in any event as he
never did any military service and his combat in the world of intelligence consisted largely of sitting behind a desk in Washington
and providing briefings to George W. Bush and Barack Obama in which he presumably told them what they wanted to hear.
Morell is one of a host of pundits who are successful in selling the military-industrial-lobbyist-congressional-intelligence community
line of BS on the war on terror. Throw in the neocons as the in-your-face agents provocateurs who provide instant intellectual and
media credibility for developments and you have large groups of engaged individuals with good access who are on the receiving end
of the seemingly unending cash pipeline that began with 9/11. Frances Townsend, who was the Bush Homeland Security adviser and who
is now a consultant with CNN, is another such creature as is Michael Chertoff, formerly Director of the Department of Homeland Security,
who has successfully marketed his
defective airport
scanners to his former employer.
But the guys and gals who are out feathering their own nests are at least comprehensible given our predatory capitalist system
of government. More to the point, the gang that ordered or carried out torture and assassination are the ones who should be doing
some hard time in the slammer but instead they too are riding the gravy train and cashing in. To name only a few of those who knew
about the torture and ordered it carried out I would cite George Tenet, James Pavitt, Cofer Black and Jose Rodriguez from the intelligence
community. The assassination program meanwhile is accredited to John Brennan, currently CIA Director, during his tenure as Obama's
Deputy National Security Advisor. And then there are Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon together with John Yoo at Justice
and Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice at the White House, all of whom outright lied, dissimulated and conspired their way
to bring about a war of aggression against Iraq.
There are plenty of nameless others who were "only carrying out orders" and who should be included in any reckoning of America's
crimes over the past fifteen years, particularly if one also considers the illegal NSA spying program headed by Michael Hayden, who
defended the practice and has also
referred to those who oppose enhanced interrogation torture as "interrogation deniers." And then there are Presidents Bush and
Obama who certainly knew what was going on in the name of the American people as well as John Brennan, who was involved in both the
torture and renditions programs as well as the more recent assassinations by drone.
So where are they now? Living in obscurity ashamed of what they did? Hardly. Not only have they not been vilified or marginalized,
they have, in most cases, been rewarded. George W. Bush lives in Dallas near his Presidential Library and eponymous Think (sic) Tank.
Cheney lives in semi-retirement in McLean Virginia with a multi-million dollar waterfront weekend retreat in St. Michaels Maryland,
not too far from Donald Rumsfeld's similar digs.
George Tenet, the CIA Director notorious for his "slam-dunk" comment, a man who cooked the intelligence to make the Iraq war possible
to curry favor with the White House, has generously remunerated positions on the boards of Allen & Company merchant bank, QinetiQ,
and L-1 Identity Solutions. He sold his memoir At the Center of the Storm, which has been
described
as a "self-justifying apologia," in 2007 for a reported advance of $4 million. His book, ironically, admits that the US invaded
Iraq for no good reason.
James Pavitt, who was the point man responsible for the "enhanced interrogation" program as Tenet's Deputy Director for Operations,
is currently a principal with The Scowcroft Group and also serves on several boards. Cofer Black, who headed the Counter-Terrorism
Center, which actually carried out renditions and "enhanced interrogations," was vice chairman of Blackwater Worldwide (now called
Xe) and chairman of Total Intelligence Solutions, a Blackwater spin-off. He is now vice president of Blackbird Technologies, a defense
and intelligence contractor. Rodriguez, who succeeded Black and in 2005 illegally destroyed video tapes made of Agency interrogations
to avoid possible repercussions, is a senior vice president with Edge Consulting, a defense contractor currently owned by IBM that
is located in Virginia.
John Yoo is a Professor of Law at the University of California Berkeley while Condoleezza Rice, who spoke of mushroom clouds and
is widely regarded as the worst National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in history, has returned to Stanford University.
She is a professor at the Graduate School
of Business and a director of its Global Center for Business and the Economy as well as a fellow at the Hoover Institution. She
is occasionally spoken of as either a possible GOP presidential candidate or as a future Commissioner of the National Football League.
Her interaction with students is limited, but when challenged on her record she has responded that it was a difficult situation post
9/11, something that everyone understands, though few would have come to her conclusion that attacking Iraq might be a good way to
destroy al-Qaeda.
Paul Wolfowitz, the Bush Deputy Secretary of Defense, is seen by many as the "intellectual" driving force behind the invasion
of Iraq. He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and advises Jeb Bush on foreign policy. A bid to
reward Wolfie for his zeal by giving him a huge golden parachute as President of the World Bank at a salary of $391,000 tax free
failed when, after 23 months in the position, he was ousted over promoting a subordinate with whom he was having an affair. His chief
deputy at the Pentagon Doug Feith left the Defense Department to take up a visiting professorship at the school of Foreign Service
at Georgetown University, which was subsequently not renewed. He is reported to be again practicing law and thinking deep thoughts
about his hero Edmund Burke, who no doubt would have been appalled to make Feith's acquaintance. Feith is a senior fellow at the
neoconservative Hudson Institute and the Director of the Center for National Security Strategies. His memoir War and Decision did
not make the best seller list and is now available used on Amazon for $.01 plus shipping. If the marketplace is anything to go
by Feith and Tenet are running neck-and-neck on secondary book exchanges as George also can be had for $.01.
The over-rewarding of former officials who have in reality done great harm to the United States and its interests might well seem
inexplicable, but it is all part of a style of bureaucracy that cannot admit failure and truly believes that all its actions are
ipso facto legitimate because the executive and its minions can do no wrong. It is also a symptom of the classic American character
flaw that all things are of necessity measured by money. Does anyone remember the ancient Roman symbol of republican virtue Lucius
Quinctius Cincinnatus, who left his farm after being named Dictator in order to defeat Rome's enemies? He then handed power back
to the Senate before returning to his plowing after the job was done. The historian Livy summed up the significance of his act,
writing "It is worthwhile for those who disdain all human things for money, and who suppose that there is no room either for great
honor or virtue, except where wealth is found, to listen to his story." George Washington was America's Cincinnatus and it is
not a coincidence that officers of the continental army founded the Cincinnati Society, the nation's oldest patriotic organization,
in 1783. It is also reported that Edward Snowden used the alias "Cincinnatus."
Lord Acton once observed that "Power tends
to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." More recently essayist Edward Abbey
put it in an American context, noting
"Power is always dangerous. Power attracts the worst and corrupts the best." That senior government officials and politicians
routinely expect to be generously rewarded for their service and never held accountable for their failures and misdeeds is a
fault that is perhaps not unique to the United States but it is nevertheless unacceptable. Handing out a couple of exemplary prison
sentences for the caste that believes itself untouchable would be a good place to start. An opportunity was missed with David Petraeus,
who was fined and avoided jail time, and it will be interesting to see how the Dennis Hastert case develops. Hastert will no doubt
be slapped on the wrist for the crime of moving around his own money while the corruption that was the source of that money, both
as a legislator and lobbyist, will be ignored. As will his molestation of at least one and possibly several young boys. One thing
for sure about the Washington elite, you never have to say you're sorry.
Information from local sources said that US army helicopters have already transported the gold bullions under cover of darkness
on Sunday [February 24th], before transporting them to the United States.
The sources said that tens of tons that Daesh had been keeping in their last hotbed in al-Baghouz area in Deir Ezzor countryside
have been handed to the Americans, adding up to other tons of gold that Americans have found in other hideouts for Daesh, making
the total amount of gold taken by the Americans to the US around 50 tons, leaving only scraps for the SDF [Kurdish] militias that
serve them [the US operation].
Recently, sources said that the area where Daesh leaders and members have barricaded themselves in, contains around 40 tons
of gold and tens of millions of dollars.
Allegedly, "US occupation forces in the Syrian al-Jazeera area made a deal with Daesh terrorists, by which Washington gets tens
of tons of gold that the terror organization had stolen, in exchange for providing safe passage for the terrorists and their leaders
from the areas in Deir Ezzor where they are located."
ISIS was financing its operations largely by the theft of oil from the oil wells in the Deir Ezzor area, Syria's oil-producing
region, and they transported and sold this stolen oil via their allied forces, through Turkey, which was one of those US allies trying
to overthrow Syria's secular Government
and install a Sunni fundamentalist regime that would be ruled from Riyadh (i.e., controlled by the Saud family) . This gold is
the property of the Syrian Government, which owns all that oil and the oil wells, which ISIS had captured (stolen), and then sold.
Thus, this gold is from sale of that stolen black-market oil, which was Syria's property.
The US Government evidently thinks that the public are fools, idiots. America's allies seem to be constantly amazed at how successful
that approach turns out to be.
Jihadists were recruited from throughout the world to fight against Syria's secular Government. Whereas ISIS was funded mainly
by black-market sales of oil from conquered areas, the Al-Qaeda-led groups were mainly funded by the Sauds and other Arab royal families
and their retinues, the rest of their aristocracy. On 13 December 2013, BBC headlined
"Guide to the Syrian rebels" and opened "There are
believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters." Except in the Kurdish
areas in Syria's northeast, almost all of those fighters were being led by Al Qaeda's Syrian Branch, al-Nusra. Britain's Center on
Religion & Politics headlined on 21 December 2015,
"Ideology
and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion" and reported: "If ISIS is defeated, there are at least 65,000 fighters belonging to other
Salafi-jihadi groups ready to take its place." Almost all of those 65,000 were trained and are led by Syria's Al Qaeda (Nusra), which
was protected by
the US
In September 2016 a UK official
"FINAL REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON COMBATING TERRORIST AND FOREIGN FIGHTER TRAVEL" asserted that, "Over 25,000 foreign fighters have traveled to the battlefield
to enlist with Islamist terrorist groups, including at least 4,500 Westerners. More than 250 individuals from the United States have
also joined." Even just 25,000 (that official lowest estimate) was a sizable US proxy-army of religious fanatics to overthrow Syria's
Government.
On 26 November 2015, the first of Russia's videos of Russia's bombing ISIS oil trucks headed into Turkey was bannered at a US
military website
"Russia Airstrike on ISIS Oil Tankers" , and exactly a month later, on 26 December 2015, Britain's Daily Express headlined
"WATCH: Russian fighter jets smash ISIS oil tankers after spotting 12,000 at Turkish border" . This article, reporting around
twelve thousand ISIS oil-tanker trucks heading into Turkey, opened: "The latest video, released by the Russian defence ministry,
shows the tankers bunched together as they make their way along the road. They are then blasted by the fighter jet." The US military
had nothing comparable to offer to its 'news'-media. Britain's Financial Times headlined on 14 October 2015,
"Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists" . Only America's allies were
involved in this commerce with ISIS -- no nation that supported Syria's Government was participating in this black market of stolen
Syrian goods. So, it's now clear that a lot of that stolen oil was sold for gold as Syria's enemy-nations' means of buying that oil
from ISIS. They'd purchase it from ISIS, but not from Syria's Government, the actual owner.
An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit
for the terrorist organization. The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish
city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city
and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq
and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man
in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto
other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
The US had done the same thing when it took over Ukraine by
a brutal coup in February 2014
: It grabbed the gold. Iskra News in Russian
reported, on 7 March 2014 , that "At 2 a.m. this morning ... an unmarked transport plane was on the runway at Borosipol Airport"
near Kiev in the west, and that, "According to airport staff, before the plane came to the airport, four trucks and two Volkswagen
minibuses arrived, all the truck license plates missing." This was as translated by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research headlining
on 14 March,
"Ukraine's Gold Reserves Secretly Flown Out and Confiscated by the New York Federal Reserve?" in which he noted that, when asked,
"A spokesman for the New York Fed said simply, 'Any inquiry regarding gold accounts should be directed to the account holder.'" The
load was said to be "more than 40 heavy boxes." Chossudovsky noted that, "The National Bank of Ukraine (Central Bank) estimated Ukraine's
gold reserves in February to be worth $1.8 billion dollars." It was allegedly 36 tons. The US, according to Victoria Nuland (
Obama's detail-person
overseeing the coup ) had invested around $5 billion in the coup. Was her installed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
cleaning out the nation's gold reserves in order to strip the nation so that the nation's steep indebtedness for Russian gas would
never be repaid to Russia's oligarchs? Or was he doing it as a payoff for Nuland's having installed him? Or both? In any case: Russia
was being squeezed by this fascist
Ukrainian-American ploy.
The Syria operation was about oil, gold, and guns. However, most of America's support was to Al-Qaeda-led jihadists, not to ISIS-jihadists.
As the great independent investigative journalist Dilyana
Gaytandzhieva reported on 2 July 2017 :
"In December of last year while reporting on the battle of Aleppo as a correspondent for Bulgarian media I found and filmed
9 underground warehouses full of heavy weapons with Bulgaria as their country of origin. They were used by Al Nusra Front (Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria designated as a terrorist organization by the UN)."
Furthermore, On
8 March 2013, Richard Spenser of Britain's Telegraph reported that Croatia's Jutarnji List newspaper had reported that "3,000
tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via
Jordan since November. The airlift of dated but effective Yugoslav-made weapons meets key concerns of the West, and especially Turkey
and the United States, who want the rebels to be better armed to drive out the Assad regime."
Also, a September 2014 study by Conflict Armaments Research (CAR), titled
"Islamic State Weapons
in Iraq and Syria" , reported that not only east-European, but even US-made, weapons were being "captured from Islamic State
forces" by Kurds who were working for the Americans, and that this was very puzzling and disturbing to those Kurds, who were risking
their lives to fight against those jihadists.
In December 2017, CAR headlined
"Weapons of the Islamic State"
and reported that "this materiel was rapidly captured by IS forces, only to be deployed by the group against international coalition
forces." The assumption made there was that the transfer of weapons to ISIS was all unintentional.
That report ignored contrary evidence, which I summed up on 2 September 2017 headlining
"Russian TV
Reports US Secretly Backing ISIS in Syria" , and reporting there also from the Turkish Government an admission that the US was
working with Turkey to funnel surviving members of Iraq's ISIS into the Deir Ezzor part of Syria to help defeat Syria's Government
in that crucial oil-producing region. Moreover, at least one member of the 'rebels' that the US was training at Al Tanf on Syria's
Jordanian border had quit because his American trainers were secretly diverting some of their weapons to ISIS. Furthermore: why hadn't
the US bombed Syrian ISIS before Russia entered the Syrian war on 30 September 2015? America talked lots about its supposed effort
against ISIS, but why did US wait till 16 November 2015 before taking action,
"'Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away': US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes" ?
So, regardless of whether the US Government uses jihadists as its proxy-forces, or uses fascists as its proxy-forces, it grabs
the gold -- and grabs the oil, and takes whatever else it can.
This is today's form of imperialism.
Grab what you can, and run. And call it 'fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption'. And the
imperial regime's allies watch in amazement, as they take their respective cuts of the loot. That's the deal, and they call it 'fighting
for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption around the world'. That's the way it works. International gangland.
That's the reality, while most of the public think it's instead really "fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against
corruption around the world." For example, as
RT reported on Sunday , March 3rd,
about John Bolton's effort at regime-change in Venezuela, Bolton said: "I'd like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together
to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime,' Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper." Trump's regime wants to bring clean and
democratic government to the poor Venezuelans, just like Bush's did to the Iraqis, and Obama's did to the Libyans and to the Syrians
and to the Ukrainians. And Trump, who pretends to oppose Obama's regime-change policies, alternately expands them and shrinks them.
Though he's slightly different from Obama on domestic policies, he never, as the US President, condemns any of his predecessors'
many coups and invasions, all of which were disasters for everybody except America's and allies' billionaires. They're all in on
the take.
The American public were suckered into destroying Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-now, and so many other countries,
and still haven't learned anything, other than to keep trusting the allegations of this lying and psychopathically vicious and super-aggressive
Government and of its stenographic 'news'-media. When is enough finally enough ? Never? If not never, then when ? Or do most people
never learn? Or maybe they don't really care. Perhaps that's the problem.
Back on 21 December 2018, one of the US regime's top 'news'-media, the Washington Post, had headlined
"Retreating ISIS army smuggled a fortune in cash and gold out of Iraq and Syria" and reported that "the Islamic State is sitting
on a mountain of stolen cash and gold that its leaders stashed away to finance terrorist operations." So, it's not as if there hadn't
been prior reason to believe that some day some of the gold would be found after America's defeat in Syria. Maybe they just hadn't
expected this to happen quite so soon. But the regime will find ways to hoodwink its public, in the future, just as it has in the
past. Unless the public wises-up (if that's even possible).
All pretense of our country being a representative democracy@snoopydawg
is gone. Our two party uniparty government has completely turned its back on serving
the needs of the vast majority of the people of this country, and of the wider world. Profit
sits at the head of our government. The monikers "Fascist" and "Totalitarian" are apt
descriptors of the direction of our current trajectory. A dystopian future surely awaits us on
this beautiful, fragile and life sustaining planet that we are trashing with such abandon.
Other than that, things are going quite nicely. Nancy is wearing her power pants and fools
are applauding.
The Dems have given Trump's insane military budget more than he asked for, they got no
bargains in renewing the NDAA (both of which betray the lie they think Trump is compromised),
and finalized a huge new trade deal with him.
The impeachment farce and most of the battle
with Trump is kabuki for the rubes. Business as usual continues in DC, except the swamp
realizes more and more that their grip on power is slipping. They are far more frightened of
Bernie Sanders. These are dangerous times.
"The Democrats did the "right" thing - considering their options.
Option A: Counter Trump with real policy issues; policies that the majority of Americans
support: ending unending wars, healthcare, environmental protection, income equality, etc..
But that would cost them money from their BIG DONORS, and as such all privileges of the Dem
bosses. Not a good option
Option B: Follow the Russiagate/Ukrainegate/Impeachment path and thereby avoid having to
oppose Trump on policy. Their BIG DONORS are happy (because there is no policy change). Even
if the Dems lose 2020 election, the party bosses still retain their privileges.
Disclaimer: The Dims and the Repugs are the same party - just two different brands of it.
Anyone doubting this assertion should check out who finance them .... big oligarchy, even if
there may be slight differences in composition.
Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Dec 18 2019 23:07 utc | 31
This IMO is the best synopsis posted to date. Salient, and to the point. Thanks NM!!
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
"... People are constantly saying the deep state wants this or it wants that and that is off the mark. The deep state follows the orders of the oligarchy it does not make policy or make independent decisions. ..."
"... The oligarchy and its empire laugh at all the pledbs caught up in their macabre pantomime covering the non-stop for 75 years slaughter of innocent people. ..."
"... We live in a dictatorship of global private finance ..."
"... The far left, if it exists, know that Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton bears no claim to anything left of fascism. ..."
I would like to put forward my understanding of the "deep state" and see if I have any
company.
In my view the deep state (the interagency consensus) is the hired help of the oligarchy,
which infects the gov and occupies every key position of power(except president for the first
time in over 75 years).
People are constantly saying the deep state wants this or it wants that and that is
off the mark. The deep state follows the orders of the oligarchy it does not make policy or
make independent decisions.
In effect, the CIA is nothing more or less than a secret army of the oligarchy.
The dems funded the wall, they gave the treasonous Trump another 100+ billion to do
Putin's bidding with, the dems fast tracked 115 Trump judges (Bernie could have stopped it
and did not) at least two nuclear treaties were abandoned and a third will be soon. The
oligarchy and its empire laugh at all the pledbs caught up in their macabre pantomime
covering the non-stop for 75 years slaughter of innocent people.
It should be clear who is in charge - the people who own the world run the world.
I am moving my comment from the Open Thread where karlof1 had provided a link to the
Trump/Pelosi letter
@ Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 18 2019 17:53 utc | 131 with the Trump letter to Pelosi
Thanks for that.
I just read it and besides what you and others have said I was struck by the blame for the
impeachment attempt being put on the "deranged and radical representatives of the far
left"."
That sentence was then followed by one saying that the Dems are motivated by and living in
fear of socialist primary challengers.
Think about that context in lieu of what many barflies here understand to be reality.
1. We live in a dictatorship of global private finance
2. The far left, if it exists, know that Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton bears no
claim to anything left of fascism.
3. America use to have a socialist government, because that is what government is by
definition, and still has, to a degree, a mixed economy of socialism and capitalism....(gawd
I hate those terms anymore)
My 2nd set of thoughts follow my first and those of other barflies comments and b's posting
1. Trump is giving the Dems cover to neuter the "socialist" candidates like Bernie and
Tulsi
2. Trump is setting the stage for a new McCarthyism.
3. As Posted by: Babyl-on | Dec 18 2019 23:21 utc | 35 who wrote
"
In effect, the CIA is nothing more or less than a secret army of the oligarchy.
"
This true and goes for all of the Deep State
4. This impeachment shit show will continue to override any social discussion of domestic or
foreign issues including the Depression that the US is clearly in....never having recovered
from the Recession of 2008
5. This is what control of the narrative looks like......get out in front of the train, make
lots of noise and carrying on to obfuscate reality.
And meanwhile the rest of the world is getting on with the evolution of a multi-polar
world.....while America and Americans are being thrown under the bus in a managed Shock
Doctrine event.
"... Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies. ..."
"... The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power to print money to these corporate fascists? ..."
Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to
overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and
Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies.
The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the
Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power
to print money to these corporate fascists?
Fascist EU enablers, like the author, have called the Brits racists for years, simply
because they want out of the Nazi-arming EU. Andrew doesn't want any lessons from his
crushing defeat -- they relate to the perils of being a fanboy for corporate war-mongering
fascists.
started by an unemployed Englishman named Eliot Higgins
Good on him – being able to create a thing that rises to such prominence in such a
short space of time speaks volumes about this Higgins guy's entrepreneurial ability. And if he
wasn't mobbed-up to begin with, he sure as fuck is now – which is a double-
mitzvah (for him).
If he did so starting from being unemployed, then anybody who turned down a job application
from the guy must be kicking themselves. (' Unemployed ' is obviously used pejoratively
in the blockquote; 'Englishman' is purely-descriptive).
.
Also, the entire article accepts Bernays' conclusion, but disagrees as to which objectives
should be pursued.
Bernays' conclusions are hardly controversial: most people are gullible imbeciles .
It's not clear to me how much more empirical evidence we need before that becomes just a thing
that everyone with an IQ above 115 accepts.
So the question then becomes " OK, now what? ".
As usual, the right answer is " Depends " – and not just for those with bladder
control problems.
If you want to do things that are just , exploiting gullible imbeciles would appear
to violate the playing conditions. It would be hors jeu ; not done; just not
cricket .
As the Laconian famously said . " IF ."
For those for whom the 'if' condition returns 'false', it does very little to bleat about
how awful they are. You're not going to cause a little switch in their brain to flick on (or
off?), whereupon they realise the error of their ways and make a conscious decision to leave
the gullible imbeciles unexploited.
It's even unlikely to affect their victims (remember, they're imbeciles) – because
otherwise some infra-marginal imbeciles would have to process their way through quite a bit of
cognitive dissonance, and they're not wired for introspection (or processing).
So the sole real purpose (apart from κάθαρσις
catharsis ) is prophylaxis (προ +
φύλαξις – guarding ). Both good enough aims
obviously the writer is the one who gets the cathartic benefit, but who is going to be on
heightened alert as a result of this Cassandra -ish jeremiad -ing?
Non-imbeciles don't need it; imbeciles won't benefit.
Here's the thing: the gullible imbeciles are going to be exploited by someone
.
.
This is something that people of my persuasion struggle with. It boils down to the
following:
Let's assume that a reprehensible thing exists already, and is unlikely to be overthrown
by my opposition to it. Should I just participate and line my pockets?
The resources used are going to be used whether I participate or not, so it may as well be
me who gets them. After all, I will put them to moral uses – and while inside, I can do
things that are contrary to the interests of the reprehensible thing.
There is no satisfactory counter-argument to that line of reasoning, and yet I reject
it.
Then again: I was dropped on my head as an infant, so YMMV.
I seem to be missing something here. Isn't Marxism where the proletariat own the means of
production? So, doesn't this look more like fascism where the corporations own
everything?
"The proletariat" don't make decisions collectively - it's not possible given the nature
of man. Every authoritarian system is fascism in practice - where a cabal of chosen ones call
the shots. Whether it's corporate execs, billionaire playboys, demagogues, bureaucrats, union
bosses, soldiers, intellectuals, or aliens at the top... it really only changes the
flavor.
Ok, so it's not just me. The repeating of the word Marx in that article was getting weird.
Can we actually talk about what that guy wrote instead of the symbol that name has become? It
seems very boomer-ish to be reviving the talk of communism all the time when that system is
essentially dead. Now a bunch of retirees are red-baiting again when Russia isn't communist,
China isn't communist, and about the only communist country on earth is Cuba.
Meanwhile, just about every country on earth is becoming an oligarchic bureaucracy. They
don't generally give a **** about **** Marx was on about.
The Short Road: Democracy to Fascism By Larry Romanoff Global Research,
November 30, 2019 Region: USA Theme: History
Fascism is a political ideology fundamentally authoritarian in character, with a strong
nationalism and an essentially belligerent militaristic outlook. Fascism carries primarily a
corporate perspective as opposed to a socialist view, directed to satisfying the needs, values
and objectives of finance and corporations, organising both the economy and the political
system according to this agenda.
A fascist government actively suppresses any objection to its ideology and typically will
crush any movement which opposes it. In keeping with their belligerent nature, fascist
governments generally view violence and war as stimulants to national spirit and
vitality.
Being politically Right-Wing, they maintain their position through firm control
or compliance of the media, and most often engage in a vast array of lies and deception. These
governments tend to be bigoted, if not racist, invariably require "enemies" to achieve public
solidarity, and are often supremacist or at least 'exceptional' in their self-assessment. They
either believe, or pretend to believe, that they have a license on truth. Large military
budgets, the creation and demonisation of fictitious enemies to propagate fear and maintain
population control, are all typical characteristics of a fascist regime, as is massive public
surveillance.
In 1995 the Italian Scholar Umberto Eco produced a paper titled 'Eternal Fascism' (1) in
which he examined the characteristics of fascist regimes. In 2003, Laurence W. Britt did an
excellent and scholarly work in dissecting and categorising past fascist regimes (2), in which
he revealed common threads that linked all of them in "patterns of national behavior and abuse
of power". He wrote that "Even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes
reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi, (which is) not a
revelation but useful to shed needed light on current circumstances." I am including here a
composite of edited extracts from these two papers with additional commentary of my own.
Significant statements by these two authors are in quotation marks. This is a list of the
characteristics of fascist states, taken from Britt's original article:
Early Warning Signs of Fascism
Powerful and continuing nationalism
Supremacy of the military
Obsession with national security
Obsession with crime and punishment
Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
Disdain for human rights
Corporate power is protected while labor power is suppressed
Controlled mass media
Rampant cronyism and corruption
Intertwined religion and government
Fraudulent elections
Disdain for intellectuals and the arts
Rampant Sexism
If we examine the US on these categories, we find an almost perfect match. Certainly the US
has the most strident nationalism of all nations today, with the hysteria of patriotism and
flag-worship unabated and even increasing, with the delusional theory of American
Exceptionalism as virulent as ever.
There is no question about military supremacy , with the US spending almost twice as much on
its military as the rest of the world combined and being by an order of magnitude the world's
largest arms manufacturer and dealer. Obama once stated flatly that for the US to remain
'peaceful and prosperous' it needed the world's largest and most powerful military to maintain
an overwhelming military supremacy. Obsession with issues of national security is so common in
the US today they have become objects of ridicule. Every manner of information is withheld,
every manner of lie is told, every manner of crime is committed, all with the excuse of
'national security'. Britt noted that a national security apparatus was usually an instrument
of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints, with its actions always
justified under the rubric of protecting "national security", and that questioning these
oppressive activities is now often portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
All the fascist regimes have an obsession with crime and punishment, Britt stating that most
"maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations" – a
perfect description of America today, including the 'unchecked power and rampant abuse' by the
police. He also noted that in all these fascist states, 'normal' crime and political crime were
almost interchangeable, "often merged into trumped-up criminal charges used against political
opponents of the regime". These characteristics of crime, punishment and incarceration are all
fields in which America leads the world by a wide margin today as we have already seen.
In terms of enemies being needed for solidarity and to maintain "a unifying cause", the US
is also the outstanding world leader, creating real and fictitious enemies not only for itself,
but doing a rather good job in creating animosities throughout the world. In fact, a signature
feature of the US is its worldwide propagation of regional unrest, as we see in Asia today, and
with interference in the Ukraine, Russia, China, and dozens of other countries. Creating
political chaos and large military risks is a common fascist trait, which is partly why
military supremacy is necessary, black and white America attempting to partition the world into
ideological factions, often in preparation for war.
For some decades, the US milked the Cold War for all it was worth, casting the Soviet Union
as a bitter enemy and creating animosity where none would have existed. With the fall of the
USSR, the US turned immediately to other nations, never really forgetting Russia, and then
created its 9-11 'Pearl Harbor Moment' that would permit it to have a permanent enemy in the
person of 'terrorism', a war that will never be won since the US creates all the terrorist
events to prolong it. It has the added advantage of demonising all the world's Muslims while
equating all Arabs with terrorists. Enough enemies here for a lifetime of fascism.
A fundamental practice of a fascist or pre-fascist government is demonisation of 'the
others', outsiders who are the enemy.
For the people, these (usually imaginary) enemies provide not only an essential
cornerstone of the fascist state but an essential adhesive for their fabricated national
identity. Being thus united against a common other, fascism becomes deeply racist by definition
and in practice. This demonisation of selected enemies is so intense that pacifism or a lack of
belligerence equate to treason, due to sympathising with the enemy or, in today's US lexicon,
"giving aid and comfort to the enemy". In the world of fascism, disagreement is treason. George
Bush and Dick Cheney: "If you aren't with us, you're against us". US Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles: "There are only two kinds of people in the world: Christians who believe in
capitalism, and the other kind."
In his study of these regimes, Britt wrote that "the most significant common thread" among
them was this demonisation of other peoples as enemies of the state, "to divert attention, to
shift blame, and to channel frustration into controlled directions". He claimed that their
methods of choice – propaganda and misinformation – were usually effective. Britt
noted that "Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt
with accordingly", which is precisely what happens today in the US, where increasingly it
occurs that challengers of the system are labeled as terrorists, even to the extent of those
operating food banks being classified as 'food terrorists'.
No reasonable person can claim today that the US has any concern for human rights, certainly
not any outside the continental US, and increasingly less within its borders. Except for
Israel, the US has by far the worst record of human rights violations during the past several
hundred years, far outstripping anything attributed to people like Stalin or Hitler, or even
the Japanese. It is, after all, the US that built and still maintains the largest network of
torture prisons and ships in the history of the world, even though the US media have removed
this topic from the publishing list.
In terms of media control, the US government covers this not by ownership or direct
censorship but by a cabal of closely-interwoven interests working on the same precise agenda,
almost totally eliminating any necessity for overt acts.
Corruption and cronyism are as alive and virulent in American government today as they have
ever been in any society at any time in recent history. The lobbies alone, working with the
secret government, are more than sufficient evidence of this, with corruption increasing
noticeably each year. Americans may quarrel with the point of an integration of religion and
government but, while religion is theoretically separated from the state, it is joined at the
hip in practice.
We have George Bush telling us God told him to invade and destroy Iraq, Obama telling us
Christ's redemption of him provides him with solace on a daily basis, and a long list of other
nonsense indicating that evangelical hysteria is never far removed from the government, even if
only to mislead an ignorant population. Britt noted that religion and the ruling elite were
tied together in some way .
"The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the
religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling
elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the 'godless'."
Fraudulent elections are more overtly creeping into the American electoral system every
year. We had George Bush's brother removing more than 50,000 persons from the voter lists in
Florida, all of whom were legitimate voters, and sufficient to provide an election victory.
Even then, when votes were finally counted accurately, Bush was proven to have lost the
election, but the consequences could not be reversed. As well, the new digital voting machines
have been condemned even by those who designed them, as wide open to electoral fraud and
manipulation to the extent of changing the outcome of every vote. Moreover, it is openly
admitted that even without manipulation, an accurate count is not physically possible. But the
government continues to roll out these systems, one would have to assume for their manipulation
potential.
It is widely recognised the US has been dumbing-down education for decades, starving the
educational systems of funds, using increasingly unqualified part-time and adjunct teachers and
professors, increasing tuition costs to the point where education will soon be unaffordable. We
don't need an education to see that the only possible result is an increasingly uneducated and
ignorant population. In his study, Britt noted that "intellectual and academic freedom were
considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly
controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or
expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed." This forms a perfect
description of the situation today in the US, certainly on the crushing of dissent. I have no
observation to make on the arts, but the US appears to qualify solidly on every point in the
above list, and I see no reason for Americans or indeed anyone else to take comfort in this. Is
the US a fascist state? How do we avoid answering in the affirmative?
To people of a country like the US, who are deprived of a clear national identity, fascism
creates one by stoking the fires of a false nationalism though propagandising the
pathologically false conviction that "the world's greatest privilege is to be born or to live
in this country", that every citizen "belongs to the best people in the world", all of whom
are, by definition, "good". US President Calvin Coolidge:
"To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever
accorded to the human race".
Michael Hirsh used the same jingoistic nonsense to justify American cannibalisation of the
world by stating that American global domination was "the greatest gift the world has received
in possibly all of recorded history." Britt noted the powerful propagation and displays of
nationalistic expression,
"From the prominent displays of flags and ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show
patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its
frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were
common themes in expressing this nationalism."
To underscore the above, Global Research published an article in March of 2015 titled "The
End of Canada in Ten Steps: A Conversation with Naomi Wolf" (3), in which it was noted that she
studied "the way open societies were crushed from within by authoritarian elements", such as
those existing in all Right-Wing countries today, and claimed there was "a 'blueprint' followed
by all dictatorial rulers composed of ten steps" as follows:
Invoke an external and internal threat
Establish secret prisons
Develop a paramilitary force
Surveil ordinary citizens
Infiltrate citizen groups
Arbitrarily detain and release citizens
Target key individuals
Restrict the press
Cast criticism as "espionage" and dissent as "treason"
Subvert the rule of law
Global Research finally noted that "In her 2007 book The End of America: Letter of Warning
to a Young Patriot, Naomi Wolf not only described this formula for fascism, she outlined how
these repressive measures are in evidence in modern day America."
There is one other item pertaining to fascism in America that contains elements
of all characteristics we've discussed, one which Hollywood and the media have taken great
pains to develop though the ground was already very fertile indeed, and this category is heroes
and super-heroes. The US has always glorified war and war heroes, describing American
cannon-fodder as "sons of freedom giving their lives for democracy", when they were simply
massacring impoverished civilians to enrich the bankers. Eco noted that "In every mythology the
hero is an exceptional being, but in Fascist ideology heroism is the norm", with the fascist
hero impatient to die, but who, in his impatience, "more frequently sends other people to
death".
This black and white religious proto-fascism which has perhaps always existed in America was
the seedbed for the worship of heroes and winners. Americans, in their desperate jingoistic
desire to be "good" and to "win", and in a bid to prove their overwhelming moral superiority,
turned from reality to fiction and gave us Superman, Batman, Spiderman and Captain America. All
are Christian proto-fascists engaged in fictional battles of good against evil, with the
Americans living vicariously through these imaginary beings, sharing in their awesome power and
moral righteousness, and whose costumes inevitably bear labels saying "Made in America". And
indeed we cannot watch an American movie without encountering this irritating white supremacist
ideology. Think of movies like Avatar or Independence Day; their entire purpose is to fuel this
ideological jingoism and make all viewers "proud to be American". But it's all a fiction. The
real American heroes are not Superman or Spiderman but Curtis LeMay, Henry Kissinger, Ronald
Reagan and Madeline Albright, all criminally-insane psychopathic killers.
It is interesting that a fascist government, with its instinctive hatred of socialism,
propagates "fascist socialism" which nurtures and feeds corporations while normal socialism
nurtures the general population. What we might call "corporate socialism", which is what exists
today in the US, is a fairly precise definition of fascism.
Tax benefits that favor the rich either primarily or exclusively, a high income inequality,
the dismantling of any social safety net, different laws for the rich and powerful than for the
poor, corporate immunity for crimes, a lack of corporate regulation and oversight, are all
typical characteristics. Britt noted that "Since organized labor was seen as the one power
center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate
allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The US government and elites, except for
one brief historical period, have always strived to destroy labor to protect the profits of big
business. In Britt's study, "the poor formed an underclass, (and) being poor was considered
akin to a vice." And in which nation today have color and poverty been criminalised? The
world's largest fascist state – America.
He also noted rampant cronyism and corruption between the political and corporate elites and
stated that "With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this
corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population."
Corruption and cronyism are as alive and virulent in American government today as they have
ever been in any society at any time in recent history. The lobbies alone, working with the
secret government, are more than sufficient evidence of this, with corruption increasing
noticeably each year. Similarly, no reasonable person can question any longer the suppression
of labor and the protection and enhancement of corporate power in America. We have already
covered in detail the trashing of the social contract, the destruction of labor protections and
the evisceration of the middle class. No further evidence is necessary.
There is another alarming category that evidences even more strongly the threats to civil
society from the authoritarian and fascist police-state mentality that is increasingly
permeating all of the US, this involving trivial civil disputes that should in no case involve
the police. In July of 2014, a Minneapolis man was ejected from a Southwest Airlines flight
with his two children for questioning why he was qualified for priority boarding but his two
children were not. He posted a Tweet that said, "Wow, rudest agent in Denver. Kimberly S, gate
C39, not happy". Southwest Airlines' gate attendants saw the tweet, ejected Watson and his
children from the flight, informing him he now qualified as a "safety threat", threatening to
have him arrested unless he immediately deleted his post.
In the US today, kindergarten teachers regularly call the police to arrest children who
misbehave. A Chinese woman tourist in New Hampshire was tasered and assaulted by police when a
clerk at an Apple store complained she wanted to buy two phones. In another case, a father in
New Hampshire attended a parent-school meeting to protest the classroom use of
sexually-explicit reading material provided to his teen-age daughter. When the man exceeded the
arbitrary maximum of two minutes speaking time, the principal called the police and had the man
arrested. In each case, no 'law' was violated so the police used generic charges of "causing a
public disturbance" or some other such nuisance charge.
These false charges may well be dismissed by a court but still present a serious violation
of civil rights and a gross exaggeration of the ability of individuals to create their own laws
and of the police to enforce them. In the Southwest Airlines case above, had the man refused to
delete his negative post, the agent would certainly have called the police who, cast from the
same authoritarian mold, would have automatically arrested and charged him, probably with
'Twitter Terrorism'. The man would likely have escaped in the end, but it would have been a
long and expensive climb out from the bottom of that hole. In the case of the Apple store, the
female customer was physically knocked to the ground and tasered by police immediately on their
arrival. In neither case did the police make even minimal attempts to ascertain the facts. In
fact, the only salient "fact" was that of a civilian challenging any kind of authority, even
the kind that is so weak as to be invisible. No civilian has any practical defense against an
airline agent or shop clerk who testifies that he "caused a public disturbance", nor against
police charges for having done so. The only immunity comes from wealth or political power.
There are countless similar cases which all have in common an implicit assumption that
anyone, even in a position of minimal authority such as a KFC clerk, has the power to dictate
imaginary rules that obtain the force of law with the police and which, if challenged, will
result in arrest. Individual private citizens, as least those lacking obvious wealth or power,
are increasingly relegated to the social trash bin. Incidents such as these may appear
individually trivial and unconnected, but they are not trivial in bulk and are indications of a
frightening authoritarianism infecting all of America, part of the widespread rush to fascism
occurring in all politically Right-Wing nations, especially in the US. That this should be such
a common experience is a frightening and almost terrifying development, where one now fears to
enter any dispute with even the most minor employee or clerk, in almost any context, and
regardless of the justification.
When common citizens are afraid to challenge the most trivial injustices in civil society,
when the people as individuals have been moved to the bottom of the priority list, when even
store clerks have effective arrest authority, this is authoritarian fascism – a classic
definition of a de facto fascist police state. In the US today there are so many similar
examples where this, the most fundamental of civil rights – the right to voice complaint
– has been converted to a criminal act. Those instances involved mostly the police badly
exceeding their authority, but this category involves mere civilians with no actual invested
civil authority of any kind, and yet in each case legal authority being presumed and exercised
entirely at the whim of these same persons. While Americans please themselves by accusing China
of being authoritarian, it is in fact the US that is both authoritarian and fascist. China is
today a very human civil society compared to Transformed America.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior
executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export
business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai's Fudan University, presenting case
studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is
currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be
contacted at: [email protected]
How about the hysteria that led to the Spanish War? "Remember the Maine," The ship was
supposedly sunk in Havana Harbor by Spanish perfidy. In fact the Maine blew up because a coal
bunker fire burned through a bulkhead and set off something or other. That was the US Navy's
investigative finding after the war. Don't tell me about Hearst. Hearst was just selling
newspapers. The American people went into a hysteric rage against Spain and that was the cause
of war. Hearst just wanted to find "Rosebud." Figure it out.
And now we have the approaching end of the world through man made climate change. It would
be funny if there were not so many who believe it.
Science? Hah! For every study you can produce in support of this fantasy I will find you one
to rebut it. All you ecofreaks! Don't send me material about this. I will not help you support
the hysteric fantasy. Send money to the Democratic Party. They believe this crap. pl.
Now this is a post I can get behind. For me it has been the hysteria and the ease with which
people are manipulated through propaganda that has astonished me, because that is what the
climate change agenda is all about. We can all agree that humans have had a devastating
impact on every corner the environment, every ecosystem. However, it is a leap of
manufactured faith (manipulation) to claim that humans are responsible for climate change.
To support this bogus hypothesis, scientists strangle and manipulate data in an effort to
justify draconian laws and policies that can only line the pockets of the very rich at the
expense of the rest of the tax paying population. Carbon tax is the real aim here, a totally
bullshit pretext to suck more trillions of dollars from the economies of the world.
Self-selecting "experts" join the chorus because of fear of censorship and loss of status
while the brave ones are called, as always, climate change denialists, and thus
denigrated.
Oh man! Even most of the lefties I associate with believe it. They are supposed to,
through the tenets of their secular 'religion,' use solid evidence as their guides. The
evidence is not persuasive. The Earth has gone through fluctuations in climate for ever. The
dinosaurs made do in a much hotter earth, if the geologic evidence be true. It took a cosmic
strike to do them in.
Humans are the top predators here because they can adapt to change much quicker than any
other animal. Modern human civilization may not be recognizable to any of us in two hundred
years. That would be true with or without "climate change." We will carry on, one way or
another.
Similarly to what Bandit wrote above, I see various 'elites' angling to make book on whatever
does happen. The Science Fiction writer William Gibson has proposed in his book "The
Peripheral," a near future based on a massive world population die back that he calls "The
Jackpot."
Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peripheral
All in all, we live in 'Interesting Times.'
Thank you for your indulgence.
"... In other words, the ruling class dictatorship can no longer rule by popular democratic ways. The principal contradiction in U.S. society remains in the alienation between labor and capital. Fascism is simply the only way to maintain capitalist rule, according to scientific socialism. ..."
"... Fascist movements are historically composed of their leaders, small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats or petty-bourgeois, farmers, and the declassed lumpenproletariat. Big capital sponsors and funds the movement. Big time capitalists, along with the top-tier leaders they create, then make up Fascism's ruling nobility. ..."
"... Among the characteristics of fascists: They are fiercely nationalistic and patriotic. Criticisms are unpatriotic or treasonous. Fascists are opposed to Marxism and any left politics, from moderate to progressive. Fascism infuses suspicion about foreigners, thuggery, and exudes an adversarial mentality, ..."
"... "Big capital sponsors and funds the movement." ..."
"... Fascism is always on war footing. All levels of government need to be in the line of march. Imprisonment and execution await any person that opposes the new norm. ..."
"... Fascism raises its ugly head without a revolution taking place. Their rule comes from the top of the anointed aristocracy. Corporate power reigns supreme. No workers' rights exist. Wars are made mainly to create markets. Fascism is supposed to liberate survivors of these wars in foreign lands – a justification for imperialism. Art, where it does not conform to Fascist culture, is destroyed. When Fascism does appear, Antifa will not save us. ..."
"... Dr. Ken Morgan is an activist scholar and internationalist. He can be reached at ..."
Often a demagogic politician such as Trump is called fascist because he won the election
through bourgeois-democratic methods and his rightist policies. Trump won the election. He now
leads through bourgeois-democratic practices. President Trump continues to exploit the
prejudice and ignorance of the white working-class. The Donald overturned political norms; he
used double meaning slogans such as "Make America great again," and "lock her up" that sounded
like political rhetoric but appealed to racists as well.
Trump's win in 2016 remained predicated on Hillary Clinton's deficits and her asides about
the "deplorable," white working-class, and her relationship to Barack Obama, who did nothing
for white and black workers. Obama chose to rescue capitalist corporations at the expense of
the working class and other lower-middle-income forces – many blacks that lost their
houses.
Huey Long was a demagogue. Senator Joseph McCarthy provides an example of a demagogue, as do
many of the Dixiecrats that Malcolm X so rightly railed against through his speeches and
activism. George Wallace fits the criteria. When all said and done, they all are capitalists.
They work on behalf of capitalists to perpetuate capitalism and spread worldwide
imperialism.
"They all are capitalists."
Yes, both Mussolini and Hitler were demagogues, but their countries' underlying dire
economic conditions made them and their administrations Fascists.
Trump is just another one of the forty-four U.S. presidents that held reign over capitalism
and, after the beginning of the twentieth century, the advent of U.S. imperialism – the
highest order of capitalism. They presided over state terrorism and genocide against world
peoples.
Capitalism in the U.S. produces gross economic deprivations and inequalities, racism,
sexism, and homophobia. Look at what Harry Truman did when he nuclear bombed Hiroshima and
Nagasaki Japan. Like puppeteers, the capitalist ruling classes will, for as long as capitalism
still exists, control politicians' strings. Yes, capitalism is in crisis and rotten to the
core, but not yet failed.
You will not get rid of any of these things by impeaching Trump.
What Is Fascism?
Yes, Adolph Hitler and Mussolini were both demagogic and fascist. Fascism, according to
Marxist precepts, observation and study, stems from a mass movement rooted in the capitalist
ruling classes, that not able to survive without it. Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler are two
historical examples of such fascists.
In other words, the ruling class dictatorship can no longer rule by popular democratic
ways. The principal contradiction in U.S. society remains in the alienation between labor and
capital. Fascism is simply the only way to maintain capitalist rule, according to scientific
socialism.
Fascist movements are historically composed of their leaders, small capitalists,
low-level bureaucrats or petty-bourgeois, farmers, and the declassed lumpenproletariat. Big
capital sponsors and funds the movement. Big time capitalists, along with the top-tier leaders
they create, then make up Fascism's ruling nobility.
Among the characteristics of fascists: They are fiercely nationalistic and patriotic.
Criticisms are unpatriotic or treasonous. Fascists are opposed to Marxism and any left
politics, from moderate to progressive. Fascism infuses suspicion about foreigners, thuggery,
and exudes an adversarial mentality,
"Big capital sponsors and funds the movement."
Organizationally, there exists an iconic leader and secretive and selective capitalists.
They scrutinize your every move at the job, and at schools. Fascism is always on war
footing. All levels of government need to be in the line of march. Imprisonment and execution
await any person that opposes the new norm.
Economic equality is a no-no. Immigrants obtain lower status than actual citizens. Equality
in gender, religion, sex, and minority rights are forbidden. Backward religious beliefs often
prevail. If you are not a Christian or an affiliated Catholic, you are out of the circle.
Violence creates racial inferiority and the destiny of history.
Fascism raises its ugly head without a revolution taking place. Their rule comes from
the top of the anointed aristocracy. Corporate power reigns supreme. No workers' rights exist.
Wars are made mainly to create markets. Fascism is supposed to liberate survivors of these wars
in foreign lands – a justification for imperialism. Art, where it does not conform to
Fascist culture, is destroyed. When Fascism does appear, Antifa will not save us.
Summary
So yes, Trump is a demagogic leader with disdainful characteristics, but capitalism has not
reached the point where actual fascism is the only way capitalists can rule. For now,
understand that imperialism, racism, sexism, and homophobia are characteristics of capitalism.
The rule of capitalist law and the capitalist form of democracy continues to exist. We, as
black people, do not want to be disoriented into thinking that the U.S. and Trump are
Fascist.
Dr. Ken Morgan is an activist scholar and internationalist. He can be reached at[email protected].
"... The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to "social viscosity" in a large-scale organization. According to the "iron law," democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible ..."
The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German syndicalist
sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.
The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how
democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop
oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible,
especially in large groups and complex organizations.
The relative structural fluidity in a
small-scale democracy succumbs to "social viscosity" in a large-scale organization. According
to the "iron law," democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible.
"... Iron Law of Oligarchy refers to the inherent tendency of all complex organizations to develop a ruling clique of leaders with interests in the organization itself rather than in its official aims. ..."
"... It became difficult for the mass membership to provide any effective counterweight to this professional, entrenched, leadership, the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Aristotle used the term oligarchy as a synonym for rule by the rich. Oligarchy is not always a rule by wealthy people, for which the term is plutocracy . Oligarchy means "the rule of the few" and monarchy means "the rule of the one" ..."
"... Oligarchy can also be compared with aristocracy . In an aristocracy, a small group of wealthy or socially prominent citizens control the government. Members of this high social class claim to be, or are considered by others to be, superior to the other people because of family ties, social rank, wealth, or religious affiliation. ..."
Civil Service is a self-perpetuating oligarchy, the Iron Law of Oligarchy. Many writers
believe that any political system eventually evolves into iron law of oligarchy. James Madison,
the fourth President of the United States said: "Never fear. The iron law of oligarchy always
obtains." In iron law of oligarchy, actual differences between viable political rivals are
small, the oligarchic elite impose strict limits on what constitutes an 'acceptable' and
'respectable' political position. Iron Law of Oligarchy was first defined by German sociologists like Robert
Michels (1876-1936).
According to writers, Zulma Riley, Keith Riley, and Robert Michels, modern Democracy should be considered
as elected Oligarchy
. They called this theory the iron law of oligarchy. Michels discovered that in the Iron Law of
Oligarchy, even in the most egalatarian movements, elites will call
most of the shots.
Iron Law of Oligarchy refers to the inherent tendency of all complex organizations to
develop a ruling clique of leaders with interests in the organization itself rather than in its
official aims.
It became difficult for the mass membership to provide any effective
counterweight to this professional, entrenched, leadership, the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
Aristotle used the term oligarchy as a synonym for rule by the rich. Oligarchy is not always a
rule by wealthy people, for which the term is plutocracy . Oligarchy means "the rule of
the few" and monarchy
means "the rule of the one".
Such power-sharing from one person to a larger group of persons
happened when English nobles got together in 1215 to force King John of England to sign the
Magna Carta, a recognition of failure of oligarchy. Magna Carta guaranteed greater rights to
greater numbers of people, thus setting the stage for English constitutional monarchy .
Oligarchy can also be compared with aristocracy . In an aristocracy, a small
group of wealthy or socially prominent citizens control the government. Members of this high
social class claim
to be, or are considered by others to be, superior to the other people because of family ties,
social rank, wealth, or religious affiliation.
Breaking the iron law of oligarchy: union revitalization in the American labor movement.
Voss, Kim and Sherman, Rachel - The American Journal of Sociology [AJS], 106(2), 303 - 49.
ABSTRACT: This article addresses the question of how social movement organizations are able to
break out of bureaucratic conservatism. The article concludes by drawing out the theoretical
implications of the finding that bureaucratic conservatism can sometimes be overcome in mature
social
movements .
"... it's not that fascism is a personality trait, but rather fascism, or more generally right wing populism, is a social phenomenon where some personality traits are weaponised ..."
"... That's a good analogy. But this only means that the financial oligarchy can be a privileged social group crossing racial lines. The term "Jews" as used by fascists was, at least initially, directly at financial oligarchy, where this ethnic group was overrepresented. In general, anti-Semitism can be viewed as a scapegoating, a primitive and misguided protest against the excesses of capitalism. In this sense, "economic crises happen because banks are run by Jews, who are evil or not part of the community" has the real meaning "economic crises happen because banks are run by the financial oligarchy, which is evil or not part of the community." ..."
"... I see Brexit more of a spontaneous protest against neoliberal globalization, which is not that much connected with "conservative cultural values" but with more prosaic things like displacement of workers by foreigners, disappearance of good job due to relentless outsourcing/offshoring, automation and cost-cutting, reduction of national sovereignty (including inability to regulate labor flows) due to EU neoliberal policies, brazen betrayal by the New Labour of working and lower middle class economic and social interests, growth in inequality and gradual slide of the standard of living of working and lower middle class due to the redistribution of wealth up immanent under neoliberalism etc. ..."
"... The same set of reasons which in the USA led to the election of Trump and decimation of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (Hillary fiasco). After almost 30 years, US workers managed to understand that Clinton's democrats are essentially "wolfs in sheep's clothing" and decided to show them the middle finger, which as a side effect of the two-party system led to the election of Trump. ..."
"... And this process is irreversible, unless Democratic Party changes, and Clinton democrats brass is excluded from the party and sent to the dustbin of history, where they belong. That's why I am skeptical about Dem Party chances in 2020, unless one of the trio Warren/Sanders/Tulsi (who promote some level of changes) is the nominee. The train of history has left the station for the Corporate Democrats, and they are still standing on the old platform, hoping that it returns. ..."
"... And I view the resurgence of the far-right nationalism as a primitive form of social protest, which of course is hijacked, exploited and misdirected by sleek demagogy from the second branch of oligarchy that does not like the results of globalization, and resent FIRE and Silicon Valley branch, in full accordance with the dialectical view on Oligarchy, where with time neoliberal oligarchy inevitably splits and factions start fighting with each other tooth and nail. ..."
So in the end the problem is, are "loyalty, authority, sanctity" actually fascist
values? In my opinion largely yes,
That's a bridge too far. FYI fascism is an ideology of national socialism, or socialism
for one privileged and racially defined group (eclectic, but still an ideology), not a system
of badly defined personal traits, or values.
Moreover, loyalty (and a certain level of groupthink and conformism) can be legitimately
viewed as a precondition of survival of any organized group. Look at religious group that
adopt all those three values. Are all of them (or even most of them) fascist?
But one of the observable differences between Republican and Democratic Parties in the USA
is the difference in the level of authoritarism of the average member of the party. That's an
interesting difference that has certain social implications as for policies that each of the
parties favor most when in power (I abstract here from the sad fact that the USA Corporate
Dems recently became the second pro-war militarist party, and learned to love intelligence
agencies; two things unimaginable in 60th and 70th. )
I disagree. Fascism is not an ideology in the way we understand the term, it's just too
muddled, and certainly is not socialism for a single ethnic group : Hitler and Mussolini even
more used a lot of socialist buzzwords because at the time socialism polled well, but in
reality many if not most of their policies were in direct opposition to that of the socialist
parties of the time, and they came to power by beating and literally killing socialists.
At best we could say that fascism is closer to ordoliberalism, as they never put in question
the role of property, but they saw some behaviors as a form of excessive capitalism. But even
there they put it in moral terms, economic crises happen because banks are run by Jews, who are
evil or not part of the community, or because of a Bolshevik Jewish American Masonic conspiracy
(Mussolini).
What happens IMO is that currently right leaning parties would lose big time if they fought
elections on economics, so they have to fight elections on cultural values. If they fight on
cultural values they can get the support of many people of the working class who would
otherwise give them the middle finger.
At some point the conservative cultural values may become prevalent even on the economic
interests, as we see in the case of brexit, but this happens because conservative parties bet
on conservative cultural values early on.
When we get to conservative cultural values, these are not really a specific set of values,
or actually every society has its own traditional values. The point is that the right wing
populists bet on the values that are perceived as traditional in that point of time, because
such values have an appeal that goes beyond social class.
The values of "loyalty, authorithy and sacred" are certainly part of the human psyche,
because everyone is loyal to something, respects some authority and holds this or that thing as
sacred, but if you take them in the abstract they just mean "I'm part of a group and I will
follow it", so in the way Haidt seems to discuss them they refer just to the perception of
being part of a community and fighting off the outsiders, that dovetails with the weaponisation
of traditional cultural values by the right.
So it's not that fascism is a personality trait, but rather fascism, or more generally
right wing populism, is a social phenomenon where some personality traits are weaponised
.
This is a good comment that clarifies your views considerably. And with this
clarification, I believe we are generally on the same page. Thank you.
At best, we could say that fascism is closer to ordoliberalism, as they never put in
question the role of property, but they saw some behaviors as a form of excessive
capitalism. But even there they put it in moral terms; economic crises happen because banks
are run by Jews, who are evil or not part of the community, or because of a Bolshevik
Jewish American Masonic conspiracy (Mussolini).
That's a good analogy. But this only means that the financial oligarchy can be a
privileged social group crossing racial lines. The term "Jews" as used by fascists was, at
least initially, directly at financial oligarchy, where this ethnic group was
overrepresented. In general, anti-Semitism can be viewed as a scapegoating, a primitive and
misguided protest against the excesses of capitalism. In this sense, "economic crises happen
because banks are run by Jews, who are evil or not part of the community" has the real
meaning "economic crises happen because banks are run by the financial oligarchy, which is
evil or not part of the community."
What happens IMO is that, currently, right-leaning parties would lose big time if they
fought elections on economics, so they have to fight elections on cultural values. If they
fight on cultural values, they can get the support of many people of the working class who
would otherwise give them the middle finger.
Not only right-leaning parties. All neoliberal parties. That's why identity politics is as
important under neoliberalism as it was under classic national socialism. That's a classic
application of "Divide and Conquer" principle in politics, which, in turn, is the Corollary
of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, the way the oligarchic elite weakens threats to its rule by
distracting population from actual issues, and imposing strict limits on what constitutes an
'acceptable' and 'respectable' political position. Neo-McCarthyism serves the same
purpose.
At some point, the conservative cultural values may become prevalent even on the
economic interests, as we see in the case of Brexit, but this happens because conservative
parties bet on conservative cultural values early on.
I respectfully disagree. I see Brexit more of a spontaneous protest against neoliberal
globalization, which is not that much connected with "conservative cultural values" but with
more prosaic things like displacement of workers by foreigners, disappearance of good job due
to relentless outsourcing/offshoring, automation and cost-cutting, reduction of national
sovereignty (including inability to regulate labor flows) due to EU neoliberal policies,
brazen betrayal by the New Labour of working and lower middle class economic and social
interests, growth in inequality and gradual slide of the standard of living of working and
lower middle class due to the redistribution of wealth up immanent under neoliberalism
etc.
The same set of reasons which in the USA led to the election of Trump and decimation
of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (Hillary fiasco). After almost 30 years, US
workers managed to understand that Clinton's democrats are essentially "wolfs in sheep's
clothing" and decided to show them the middle finger, which as a side effect of the two-party
system led to the election of Trump.
And this process is irreversible, unless Democratic Party changes, and Clinton
democrats brass is excluded from the party and sent to the dustbin of history, where they
belong. That's why I am skeptical about Dem Party chances in 2020, unless one of the trio
Warren/Sanders/Tulsi (who promote some level of changes) is the nominee. The train of history
has left the station for the Corporate Democrats, and they are still standing on the old
platform, hoping that it returns.
And I view the resurgence of the far-right nationalism as a primitive form of social
protest, which of course is hijacked, exploited and misdirected by sleek demagogy from the
second branch of oligarchy that does not like the results of globalization, and resent FIRE
and Silicon Valley branch, in full accordance with the dialectical view on Oligarchy, where
with time neoliberal oligarchy inevitably splits and factions start fighting with each other
tooth and nail.
Russiagate and Ukrainegate (which is essentially Russiagate 2.0) are just two reflections
of this internal political struggle within the USA oligarchy. Struggle that in some forms
gradually became closer and closer to the civil war (or, at least, The War between Antony and
Octavian) for political dominance as views on the ways to overcome the current crisis of
neoliberalism in the USA of those two factions became more and more incompatible.
Historically national socialism emerged as a way to overcome the crisis of capitalism at the
beginning of the XX century.
it's not that fascism is a personality trait, but rather fascism, or more generally
right wing populism, is a social phenomenon where some personality traits are
weaponised.
I agree. That's an interesting angle to view the current resurgence of the far right. But
it does not explain the fact why in the USA many members of trade unions voted for Trump.
Also, please take a look at the phenomenon of Tucker Carson.
Thank you again for your insights into this complex social phenomenon.
LYNN FRIES : This newsdoc explores the folly of expecting private enterprise to
operate in the service of the public interest on a grand scale, globally, in key fields:
Financing the United Nations 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals, Climate change,
Health, Digital cooperation, Gender equality and the empowerment of women, Education and
skills. Specifically, it explores the United Nation's Strategic Partnership Agreement with the
World Economic Forum. The agreement was signed by the Office of the UN Secretary-General and
Executives of WEF, the World Economic Forum better known as DAVOS, a leading proponent of
public-private partnerships and a multistakeholder approach to global governance.
The United Nations as the world's intergovernmental multilateral system should always focus
on protecting common goods and providing global public benefits. That's the position of
signatories of an Open Letter sent to the UN Secretary-General by hundreds of civil society
organizations from all regions of the world. The letter states: "This public-private
partnership will permanently associate the UN with transnational corporations, some of whose
essential activities have caused or worsened the social and environmental crises that the
planet faces. This is a form of corporate capture". The letter calls on the Secretary-General
to terminate the Agreement.
I met up with Harris Gleckman to get his take on all this. Harris Gleckman is the author of
"Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge" and is currently working on a
handbook on the governance of multistakeholderism. Harris Gleckman is a Senior Fellow at the
Center for Governance and Sustainability, UMass Boston. We go now to our featured clips of that
meeting.
LYNN FRIES : Civil society is calling the World Economic Forum-UN Agreement as a
corporate takeover of the UN.
HARRIS GLECKMAN: The UN Charter starts with the words "We the Peoples". What the
Secretary-General is doing through the Global Compact and now through the partnership with the
World Economic Forum is tossing this out the window. He is saying: I'm going to align the
organization with a particular structural relationship with multinationals, with
multistakeholderism, and set aside attention to all the different peoples of the world in their
particular interests of environment, health, water needs and really talk about how to govern
the world with those who have a particular role in creating problems of wars from natural
resources, of creating problems relating to climate, creating problems relating to food supply
and technologies. That is undermining a core element of what the United Nations has been and
should be for its next 75 years.
LYNN FRIES : It's striking that the Agreement was signed as the UN is celebrating 100
years of multilateralism, the centenary year 1919 to 2019. And next year 2020 will mark the
1945 signing of the UN Charter 75th anniversary.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : Lynn, if I could give you an overview of what I'm concerned about
the aspect of this about multistakeholderism is that the Secretary-General is the leading
public figure for the multilateral system, the intergovernmental system. The World Economic
Forum is the major proponent or one of the major proponents that a multi-stakeholder governance
system should replace or marginalize the multilateral system. So the Secretary-General is
taking steps to just jump on the bandwagon of multistakeholderism without a public debate about
the democratic character of multistakeholderism, about a public debate about whether this is
effectively able to solve problems, without a public debate about how stakeholders are selected
to become global governors or even a public debate about what role the UN should have with any
of these multistakeholder groups.
LYNN FRIES : I noted that the letter that was sent to the UN Secretary-General was
also copied to the President of the General Assembly, the President of the Security Council and
the Chair of the G77 with a request that it be circulated to all Governments as an Official
Document.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : The Secretary-General should have gone to the intergovernmental
process to debate this issue and now civil society is saying to the intergovernmental process:
If the Secretary-General isn't going to tell you about it, we want you to have that debate
anyway.
LYNN FRIES : In addressing the UN Secretary-General the letter by Civil Society
Organizations recognized that the Secretary-General faced serious challenges.
HARRIS GLECKMAN: Yes it is absolutely the case that the Secretary-General is caught
in a very difficult bind. Governments are not able to collect and are not collecting their
taxes from the bulk of international business activities because of movements around tax
havens. Government's say: well we don't have the money, so we cannot underwrite an effort to
have a credible global governance system and this is affecting the operation of the UN. So the
Secretary-General is looking at a challenge. He has the financial challenge: under payment of
current dues and underfunding of the whole organization and an aggressive effort by the Trump
administration to deconstruct all the organizations of the international system in a period
Lynn where as you observed it's the hundredth year of multilateralism and the 75th year of the
United Nations. And here the Secretary-General has two major crises on his hands in terms of
the integrity of the system.
LYNN FRIES: Briefly give us some context on what you see as the motivation of the
World Economic Forum.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : The World Economic Forum's motivation for joining, for perhaps,
even driving forward this idea of a strategic partnership came from their work following the
financial crisis starting n 2008-09. Davos, the common name for the World Economic Forum,
convened 700 people working for a year and a half on a project that they called Global Redesign
Initiative. They created that project because they realized that the whole public view about
globalization as "a good for the world" was crumbling as a result of the financial crisis. And
so they wanted to propose a new method of governing the world. And two of the elements of their
proposal – that's actually a 700 page research paper – were to have a new
relationship with governments in the United Nations system and to advocate that the global
problems of the world should be solved by multistakeholder groups. This new partnership with
the Secretary-General is an implementation of what they laid out in their Global Redesign
Initiative to have a special place in the United Nations system for corporations to influence
the behavior of the international organizations. And also for those corporations to be able to
say to other people: Look we're in partnership with the United Nations so treat us as if we
were neutral friendly bodies.
Let me just share with you a couple of examples that may help convey how serious that is.
The Sustainable Development Goals were negotiated by governments in open sessions and they
determined what the goals should be in 17 areas. Multistakeholder groups have announced that
they are going to implement Goal 8 or Goal 6. And in the process, they declare: Here is how we
will work on health, here's how we will work on education, here's how we will work on the
environment. And rewrite what is the outcome of the Sustainable Development Goals in their own
organizational interest. In some ways, that's not surprising. You bring together a group of
companies, selected governments, selected civil societies, selected academics and they will
have their own internal dynamic of concern. But what they do is they assert that what they are
doing- their rewritten version- actually they are telling the world: Well, we are actually
doing the UN version. But that is not what their text is.
For example, in the energy field, in the energy goal there are five key adjectives that
describe the target about global energy needs. The leading multistakeholder group, Sustainable
Energy for All, their target has four of those adjectives and they drop the one which was
AFFORDABILITY. This is how the process of multistakeholders taking over an area, redefining it
but to the public announcing that they are implementing the intergovernmental goals is an
unhealthy development in global governance.
LYNN FRIES : The Civil Society letter referred to the Agreement as a public-private
partnership as did you in a recent OPED. Explain more about the public interest issue with
public-private partnerships.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : Well let's take a particular effort of a public-private partnership
in providing water in a city. Historically this is a public or a municipal function to make
sure that there is adequate amounts of water. The quality of water is healthy and its safety.
And that it's regularly and reliably available to the residents in the area. When a
public-private partnership comes in, the corporate side may have an interest in some of these
goals but add an additional one. That is they want a return on their investment, they want a
profit from it. So some of the items of those various public functions – access, quality
of material of water, reliability of water, access to all people then gets suddenly changed. So
if there's a manufacturing facility in one part of town more water may be diverted in that
direction. If water purification is a little hard about a particular element: We may get a
little lazy about doing that in the interests of profits. If it's going to take a lot of work
to dig up a street and replace pipes, they'll say: Well, we can wait another five years and use
those pipes which may have lead in them. All because now you add the fact that this
public-private partnership needs to make a return of profit on what should be, what
historically has a public municipal function. So you create this unequal development in terms
of meeting public needs against the now new requirement that if you want a water system, you
have to produce a profit for some of the actors involved.
LYNN FRIES : Food security is a major issue for vast populations. Comment on the
implications for food security.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : If we want to build, recover, create a food secure world, you need
to work with those who are growing, producing foods directly. Not those who are processing,
distributing, marketing, rebranding. We need to start at the very base and create a system of
engagement with small farmers, with small fishing families, with those around the world who are
the actual food producers. Who have been preserving knowledge and building knowledge for
centuries, they received that knowledge from centuries. That's the direction that would change
the way in which we could actually look at the issues of hunger and food security in the world
in a quite different fashion. Going to those who have a profit-centered motive in global
governance will sharply narrow what might be possible to do. That's what the partnership will
tend to do as the Secretary General and WEF have private discussions about how do we address
the issue of food security while not talking very loud about how we make a profit in that
process.
LYNN FRIES : If the UN Secretary-General invited you for a 1:1 what would you
say?
HARRIS GLECKMAN : I think that I would say to the Secretary-General that he needs to
give a major re-examination of the way the United Nations works with all of the peoples of the
world. In order to provide a stronger base for the United Nations, the doors have to be made
wider so that the views of various popular bodies, social movements, communities around the
world have far greater access to the United Nations. I'd also say to him. Mr. Secretary
General, the UN needs an open and clear conflict of interest policy and a conflict of interest
practice. For those multinationals who are causes of problems, who aggravate the global
problems of inequality we need and you as Head of the United Nations need to separate the
United Nations from that process. They should not be invited to attend meetings. They should
not be allowed to make statements. In the climate area, those who are continuing to extract
natural resources from the ground where they should stay we have taken too much of carbon out
of the ground. If we're going to meet the Paris Accord, they should have no role entering the
United Nations. I'd also say to the Secretary General that he needs to establish a much bigger
office to support civil society. At the moment, the UN support for civil society organization
institutional support is about two people. That is absolutely the wrong level of engagement
with the wider elements of civil society. And the last thing I would probably say to the
Secretary-General is that the UN is very proud of having developed a system of internal
governance that protects the weaker countries, the smaller countries, that their views can be
heard in the intergovernmental governance process. The Secretary-General should not engage with
multi stakeholder groups who do not have a rulebook that allows for the protection of smaller
members of the group, that does not have a way to appeal and challenge decisions that does not
require public disclosure of their finances, all of those characteristics of
multistakeholderism. The Secretary General should have and the UN should have no relationship
with those who are not interested in protecting core concepts of democracy
LYNN FRIES : We have to leave it there. Special thanks to our guest contributor,
Harris Gleckman, and thank you for watching and for your interest in this segment of
GPEnewsdocs coming to you from Geneva, Switzerland.
The WEF and its various constituencies try to overtake control of development with their
"public-private partnership" flag but how these, let's say, partnerships, actually work and
interact with local communities and governments is an issue that need to attract more
scrutiny and transparency. If one uses the migratory pressure as a measure, so far,
development in Africa, South America and South Asia is not doing a good job on the part of
local communities. There may be a few success cases, as it seems to be the case that
deforestation in Brazil that while proceeding it's way, has somehow slowed down compared to
the last decade of the XXth century. But when a success story is analysed what you find
behind is simply strong government action as the Brazilian did starting in 2004 when they
begun the monitoring of development in the Amazon basin and expanded in 2006 with a
moratorium in soya culture and beef production. The WEF has a series of initiatives on what
they call sustainable development that sound excellent in their web pages but in reality do
not seem to work so well and the UN should be kept independent and legally above of the WEF
initiatives to monitor development and accountability. This initiative will almost certainly
result in foxes governing henhouses.
As I see it the WEF makes the hell of a good PR job without counterbalancing parties.
Truly scary stuff and why does it remind me of the way public transport was destroyed in
the US: step 1 – starve it of revenue; step 2 – privatize it (while promising
better service); step 3 – let it rot; and step 4 – close it down (responding to
the public, gripping about how bad the service had become). The job accomplished!
One has to wonder what the Sec. General has been smoking lately and where are Russians and
Chinese to push back?
The UN will never accomplish its mission, man is incapable of bringing about world peace.
The UN is here for one reason and one reason only and that is to destroy the false religious
system when the political rulers hand it their power to accomplish just that.
If WEF is looking at doing infrastructure on a global scale that is based on good science,
is sustainable and maintainable, the ultimate power over the "multi-stakeholder groups"
submitting their bids to the UN should be the UN – this means a new UN mandate that
must be ratified yearly by voters, and bureaucrats that must win elections. If this big idea
is going to accomplish what needs to be done the "stakeholders" might want to take a close
look at what happened to the dearly departed ideas of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism was
destroyed from within by the need for ever more profit; by the" rat-race to the bottom" and
by externalizing costs in the form of pollution – by the most obviously unsustainable
practices, both social and environmental. If the goal is clear and comprehensive all these
problems inherent in yesterday's capitalism will have to be addressed at the get-go. It is a
difference of scale whether a city hires a contractor to do new waterlines, or the UN hires
"multi stakeholder groups" to do some continent-wide 50 year project. That means the UN will
need to become answerable to the people for the management of all these big ideas. Because
conflict of interest will be so massive as to be unmanageable otherwise. And one definition
will be imperative – Just what stake or stakes is/are held by "multi-stakeholder
groups"? Because what is at stake is the planet itself. Not money.
The UN problem has always been money. The 200 nation states are dilatory in paying their
dues. This gives the few rich countries power – 'cooperate with us and we'll fund your
activities.' Its not as bare-faced as I state it but you get the picture. To solve this
problem we need the majority of countries to vote to make national dues a precedent claim on
each government. Publish the result of the vote and monthly progress towards the aim. Name
the countries cooperating.
Once the UN administration is confident of its income it can plan its activities better,
make peoples' health and livelihoods a priority and achieve a much higher profile amongst
humanity.
"Mining transnationals find it cheaper to buy water rights than to desalinate seawater and
transport it for tens or hundreds of kilometers. Even more so if they have to use less
polluting but more expensive desalination technologies.
This is an unequal and unjust war where the main victims are the poor population, small
farmers and the sustainable development of our region of Atacama.
We continue to approve and facilitate the approval of mining projects and mega-projects
without making it a condition not to consume water from the basin.
– The population of Copiapó, Caldera, Tierra Amarilla and Chañaral,
particularly the lower income population, suffers the consequences of having to endure
repeated supply cuts, low pressure and a terrible quality of drinking water.
The drinking water crisis in the mentioned cities is a direct consequence of the over
exploitation of the Copiapó river basin by foreign mining companies, of the
purchase-sale and speculation with water rights, as well as of the irrationality and
indolence of the State in not establishing priorities in the use of the vital water" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lGEONBfvTM
Although corporate meddling is not unheard of in the UN system, under the new terms of the
UN-WEF partnership, the UN will be permanently associated with transnational corporations. In
the long-term, this would allow corporate leaders to become 'whisper advisors' to the heads
of UN system departments.
The UN system is already under a significant threat from the US Government and those who
question a democratic multilateral world. Additionally, this ongoing corporatization will
reduce public support for the UN system in the South and the North, leaving the system, as a
whole, even more vulnerable.To prevent a complete downfall, the UN must adopt effective
mechanisms that prevent conflicts of interest consistently. Moreover, it should strengthen
peoples and communities which are the real human rights holders, while at the same time build
a stronger, independent, and democratic international governance system.
There is a strong call to action going on by hundreds of organizations against this
partnership agreement http://bit.ly/33bRQZP
"The Syrian president said he saw links between the death of Le Mesurier and the deaths of
US financier Jeffry Epstein, Al Qaeda chieftain Osama bin Laden and Islamic State (outlawed
in Russia) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. 'American billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was killed
several weeks ago, they said he had committed suicide in jail. However, he was killed because
he knew a lot of vital secrets connected with very important people in the British and
American regimes, and possibly in other countries as well,' Assad pointed out....
"'Both of us know that they [representatives of the White Helmets] are naturally part of
Al Qaeda. I believe that these people, as well as the previously liquidated bin Laden and
al-Baghdadi had been killed chiefly because they knew major secrets. They turned into a
burden once they had played out their roles. A dire need to do away with them surfaced after
they had fulfilled their roles,' Assad explained.
"According to him, the death of Le Mesurier is the work of the CIA that got rid of the
founder of the White Helmets independently or through the intelligence services of other
countries. 'Of course, this is the work of the secret services. But which secret service?
When we talk about Western secret services in general, about Turkish and some other ones in
our region, these are not the secret services of sovereign states, rather these are
departments of the main intelligence agency - the CIA,' he stressed."
Many will nod their heads in agreement with Assad's hypothesis. Indeed, one of the more
amazing happenings related to taking terrorists prisoners is the resulting lack of
information related to the NATO-Terrorist bond we know exists but rarely sees the light of
day in the form of documents, radio intercept logs and other items, although we're constantly
treated to a massive parade of captured arms and munitions including chemical weapon
precursors stamped with their NATO country of origin.
WGruff, dirtyMarxist , Nov 15 2019 16:29 utc |
165
Of course, fascists are always just trying to do what's best for their tribe. Does anyone
imagine that the Japanese and Germans and Italians of almost a century ago just woke up one
morning and decided "Hey, let's be evil! Let's commit the most inhuman acts imaginable
against our fellow humans because why not? That would be a great way to spend a few
years!" ? Of course not. They were just as convinced as our NemesisOfHumanity that they
stood for good and were just standing up for their tribe. They were convinced of their own
exceptionality, and were horrified by the flapper decadence of prior years, seeking something
more divine and purified for their respective exceptional cultures.
It would always be best if people (and whole cultures!) could accept themselves for what
they really are rather than building elaborate fantasies in which they play the starring
roles. Fascists could achieve peace of mind if they could see themselves for what they truly
are, but then with their delusions discarded they couldn't really be fascists anymore, could
they? Without their delusions the sinister threats from the scheming Soviets and the
inscrutable Chicoms would dissipate from the fascists' minds like the morning fog before the
sun. The vast gulf of differences between themselves and those "primitive others" whom
the fascists feel obligated to bring enlightenment to, by force if necessary, would dwindle
to insignificance without the delusions that the fascists rely upon to view themselves as
superheroes.
Finally, without the delusions the fascists would be able to see fascism for the pack
psychology that it is, with the fascists just being the beta dogs serving the elite alpha
dogs in the hopes for a pat on the head. The "It is also in the best interests of elites
to take care of their people" assertion would become apparent to them as a plaintive plea
to the alpha dogs of their pack/tribe for security against the imaginary threats their
delusions generate.
As an aside, real socialists never say "The elites should take care of the
little guy!" On the contrary, real socialists say "The working class should organize
itself and seize control of the productive forces of society." The first is begging from
one's master, while the second is working towards a society without masters. The first
cultivates in the believer's mind the notion that if they better serve their master that they
may be rewarded with scraps off that master's dinner table, while the second cultivates the
idea that everyone should sit at that dinner table. It is that drive to better serve the
elites that powers the viciousness of fascism, while it is the delusion that beta dog status
in the exceptional pack is an exalted position that conceals from the fascist their
own rabid viciousness.
The problem is - the Soviet Union showed that even "working class" socialist governments
still can be corrupted by power.
That the power is held by bureaucrats as opposed to oligarchs is a distinction without
meaning.
From my view, the main problem isn't that the oligarchs are taking more and more control - it
is that the balance has shifted too far. So I actually agree with what you're advocating, but
only in the short term.
Ultimately, my personal view is that a government that randomly shifts, en mass, every
generation is the only type that would work because this is the only way to ensure that
smart, motivated people within any system won't be able to long term game/modify the system
to benefit themselves.
I am sorry but I c/n remember if was the guy at the far end of the bar down near to the bathroom in the boots, bathing suit, and
top hat, or the guy at the seat nearest to the front door, in the grey flannel suit with polished boots, but it was one of them who
gave the bar, a few evenings back, much of what it needs to be coherent. It was hierarchy of elements that propagandist use to install
and support false narratives in their written and spoken words. It was system of analysis, given to us here at the bar, to establish
the gosh awful truth hidden within an intentionally wrong narrative.
That evening I had too much bar juice, so this all I can recall, 8 elements could be applied to the propaganda to diagnose and
debunk and discover the false in wrongful, misleading propaganda.. see the following.
1. EN always the propagandist must establish the general narrative God turned the blue sky, red.
2. WR the propagandist must make great wrongs into powerful strong rights.. The devil made him do it.
3. PE profession propagandists cherry pick the facts; include in the narrative only those facts that support the proposition.
The devil was seen talking to God on more than one occasion.
4. IS ignore damning or off point stuff that challenge or defeat the narrative or transform it into a positive
The fact that God had killed the devil two years before is ignored.
5. BV blame the victim.. don't give the victim a chance to speak.. The victim (God) did it..
6. MU make stuff up to support the narrative. A person on Jupitor saw God practising every evening He watched as God turned blue
seas red and red seas blue
7. AC Attack all challengers allow no one to intercede in the attack. The Pope said God could not show him that he could turn Blue
seas to red, or vice a versa
8. RL Repeat, and repeat and repeat the lie.. until it becomes embedded in the mind of the innocent. We are all tired of hearing
this story..
After sobering up and thinking about this list, I realized its content seems very close to what a lynch party seeking to get up
the never to hang an innocent slave for a criminal act "done by one of their kind" would do. The party would pretty much go through
the 8 things, attempting to convince itself that the slave was guilty, until finally one of the members of the lynching party would
swat the horse and the party would watch the victim swing..
We must develop a technology suitable to encoding these things, and to find other such things to add to this debunk the propaganda
list of 8 items; so that no one can pass off on us wrongful narrative?
Its ok to be innocently wrong, in fact, we all learn when we discover a wrong, but intentional wrong should be against the rules
of the bar.
We should adopt these 8 things and use them in our analysis..
@Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 11 2019 21:30 utc | 152
But, with that explanation, it is like you are whithewashing fascism as a merely opposing political view, which is precisley
the position and pretension of the Trumpers, when it is not. Fascism is incompatible with democracy and human rights...as the
recent ( just overnight the coup...) declarations by The Donald on the events in Bolivia come to confirm...
You forget a main characteristic of fascists, that is that they aspire ( and when the circumstances allow it, always try...)
to wipe out their political adversaries from the face of Earth, as the case in Bolivia is so flagrantry illustrating. Along with
their political adversaries, who are always those who position themselves in the side or as representives of the people, they
always try to wipe out also all those subgroups of human beings they consider utermenschen ...In this cathegory they will
include many, slavs, latinos, jews, gypsies, black people...
Then, once in power, they will use terror to keep the citizenry ( who otherwise will rebel once the real "program" of the nazis
unveiled ) in control...
That the US system is as a whole fascist falls plainly in the faces of all its deluded and anestesized citizens when you see today
that neither Pelosi, nor Schumaker, nor Clinton, nor Biden have said a word agsint what happened yesterday in Bolivia or against
the words of the POTUS who "allegedly" they try to overthrow...a representation described by Trump himself, in the heights of
stone face, as coup d´etat...
I stated that fascism has no ideology. It cannot be a "political view" .
The fascists in Rwanda are Black. The fascists in Israel are Jewish. The fascists in Ukraine are Slavs. The fascists in Colombia
are Latinos.
Fascism isn't about one ethnicity or another. Ethnic prejudice is just one (of many) handle that the capitalists elites use
to get some parts of society to attack other parts. The people who fall under that control by the capitalist elites are fascists.
NemesisCalling @127: "I see that you never question the implication of what calling one a
fascist really means"
What is fascism? It usually has a religious component, be it Protestant, Catholic, Hindu,
Shinto, and yes, Muslim, Buddhist and even Jewish.
OK, so defining fascism by religion isn't going to get you anywhere as it runs the
gamut.
There are certainly white fascists, but there are also Black fascists, Japanese fascists,
Indian fascists, Chinese fascists, Latino fascists... I guess ethnicity won't get you
anywhere with explaining what fascism is either.
Nationalism? No, there are fascists of pretty much every nationality, so that hardly gets
us anywhere closer to understanding what it is.
A fetish for crisp uniforms? No, fascists are just as likely to wear filthy rancid goat
scented rags.
Fascist ideology is malleable. It morphs to be whatever it needs to be at the moment. So
the what is the one common aspect that fascism always possesses? Answer: In the class
war between labor and capital, fascists always back capital and oppose labor.
When it comes down to a street fight big business doesn't have the numbers to counter
labor from within their own class, and the capitalist elites don't want to get their hands
dirty anyway. As a consequence they must recruit goons and societal support for those goons
from the small business class, the sub-working-class, and from the working class itself to
defeat the working class. To accomplish this recruiting the capitalist elites use their
control over mass media to make appeals to every prejudice that exists in society to turn
those influenced by those prejudices against the working class. Every form of tribalism is
exploited, and since the precise characteristics of the major tribalist divisions in society
differ from region to region, and even neighborhood to neighborhood, the composition of the
fascist forces recruited to attack the working class tends to vary from place to place.
If fascism is so variable in all of its characteristics, how then can anyone say who is
and who isn't a fascist?
The answer to that is actually fairly easy. When the class war breaks out into the open,
as is the case in Bolivia right now, the people who are not lords of capital but still throw
their lot in with capital are fascists.
In other words, in North America and Europe, fascism is far more prevalent than most
people are willing to face.
Doesn't it make you feel better to know that fascism is just the proper name for
anti-socialist?
"... The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution for the breach was ever attempted. ..."
"... In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers argued that it was the party's right to select candidates. ..."
"... The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was protected by the First Amendment . ..."
"... The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race, ..."
"... f Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district. Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election in which Canova ran as an independent. ..."
"... Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal ballot destruction , improper transportation of ballots, and generally shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the Sun-Sentinel reported at the time: ..."
"... Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies. Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments externalize what Gabbard called the "rot" in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet. ..."
"... Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled: " Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," ..."
Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project
blame for the public's doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party's subversion
of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment's willingness to address even one of these critical
failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party's bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel
doubling down on its right to rig the race during the
fraud lawsuit brought
against the DNC , as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova,
indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending
the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also
likely impact outcomes in 2020.
The content of the DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that the DNC
acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media reporters
acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going so far as
to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred " pied-piper
candidate ." One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever
to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race.
Social Media Meddling
Election meddling via social media did take place in 2016, though in a different guise and for a different cause from that which
are best remembered. Twitter would eventually admit to actively suppressing
hashtags referencing the DNC and Podesta emails in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Additional
reports indicated that tech giant Google also showed measurable "pro-Hillary
Clinton bias" in search results during 2016, resulting in the alleged swaying of between 2 and 10 millions voters in favor of Clinton.
On the Republican side, a recent episode of CNLive! featured discussion
of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which undecided voters were micro-targeted with tailored advertising narrowed with the combined
use of big data and artificial intelligence known collectively as "dark strategy." CNLive! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan noted that
SCL, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, provides data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations "worldwide,"
specializing in behavior modification. Though Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018, related companies remain.
The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The
barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock
were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding
for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The
LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear
to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid
and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign.
In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have
purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls
before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found
broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution
for the breach was ever attempted.
Though the purge was not explicitly found to have benefitted Clinton, the admission falls in line with allegations across the
country that the Democratic primary was interfered with to the benefit of the former secretary of state. These claims were further
bolstered by reports indicating that voting results from the 2016 Democratic
primary showed evidence of fraud.
DNC Fraud Lawsuit
The proceedings of the DNC fraud lawsuit provide the most damning evidence of the failure of the U.S. election process, especially
within the Democratic Party. DNC defense lawyers argued in open court for the party's
right to appoint candidates at its own discretion, while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the impression that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued
against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process
was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers
argued that it was the party's right to select candidates.
The Observer noted the sentiments of Jared Beck, the attorney representing the plaintiffs of the lawsuit:
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee -- nominating process
in 2016 were fair and impartial, and that's not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that
we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that's what the Democratic
National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white."
The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's
right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was
protected by the First Amendment . The DNC's lawyers wrote:
"To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court
precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to
selecting the party's nominee for public office ." [Emphasis added]
The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication
that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race,
Tim Canova's Allegations
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference
was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district.
Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election
in which Canova ran as an independent.
Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal
ballot destruction , improper
transportation of ballots, and generally
shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial
results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the
Sun-Sentinel reported at the time:
"[Canova] sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months
later when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification
that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending."
Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies.
Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms.
Republicans appear no more motivated to protect voting integrity than the Democrats, with
The Nation reporting that the GOP-controlled Senate
blocked a bill this week that would have "mandated paper-ballot backups in case of election machine malfunctions."
Study of Corporate Power
A 2014
study published by Princeton University found that corporate power had usurped the voting rights of the public: "Economic elites
and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
In reviewing this sordid history, we see that the Democratic Party establishment has done everything in its power to disrespect
voters and outright overrule them in the democratic primary process, defending their right to do so in the DNC fraud lawsuit. We've
noted that interests transcending the DNC also represent escalating threats to election integrity as demonstrated in 2016.
Despite this, establishment Democrats and those who echo their views in the legacy press continue to deflect from their own wrongdoing
and real threats to the election process by suggesting that mere discussion of it represents a campaign by Russia to attempt to malign
the perception of the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process.
Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former
Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments
externalize what Gabbard called the "rot"
in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet.
Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a
recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled:
" Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," Jamali
argued :
"Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.
" [Emphasis added]
Jamali surmises that Russia intends to "attack" our democracy by undermining the domestic perception of its legitimacy. This thesis
is repeated later in the piece when Jamali opines : "They want to see a retreat
of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our
elections." [Emphasis added]
The only thing worth protecting, according to Jamali and those who amplify his work (including former Clinton aide and establishment
Democrat Neera Tanden), is the perception of the democratic process, not the actual functioning vitality of it. Such deflective tactics
ensure that Russia will continue to be used as a convenient international pretext for
silencing domestic dissent as we move into 2020.
Given all this, how can one expect the outcome of a 2020 Democratic Primary -- or even the general election – to be any fairer
or transparent than 2016?
* * *
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter, co-host of CN Live! and regular contributor to Consortium News. If you value this
original article, please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
"... In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers argued that it was the party's right to select candidates. ..."
Establishment Democrats and those who amplify them continue to project
blame for the public's doubt in the U.S. election process onto outside influence, despite the clear history of the party's subversion
of election integrity. The total inability of the Democratic Party establishment's willingness to address even one of these critical
failures does not give reason to hope that the nomination process in 2020 will be any less pre-ordained.
The Democratic Party's bias against Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential nomination, followed by the DNC defense counsel
doubling down on its right to rig the race during the
fraud lawsuit brought
against the DNC , as well as the irregularities in the races between former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova,
indicate a fatal breakdown of the U.S. democratic process spearheaded by the Democratic Party establishment. Influences transcending
the DNC add to concerns regarding the integrity of the democratic process that have nothing to do with Russia, but which will also
likely impact outcomes in 2020.
The content of the DNC and
Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks demonstrated that the DNC
acted in favor of Hillary Clinton in the lead up to the 2016 Democratic primary. The emails also revealed corporate media reporters
acting as surrogates of the DNC and its pro-Clinton agenda, going so far as
to promote Donald Trump during the GOP primary process as a preferred " pied-piper
candidate ." One cannot assume that similar evidence will be presented to the public in 2020, making it more important than ever
to take stock of the unique lessons handed down to us by the 2016 race.
Social Media Meddling
Election meddling via social media did take place in 2016, though in a different guise and for a different cause from that which
are best remembered. Twitter would eventually admit to actively suppressing
hashtags referencing the DNC and Podesta emails in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Additional
reports indicated that tech giant Google also showed measurable "pro-Hillary
Clinton bias" in search results during 2016, resulting in the alleged swaying of between 2 and 10 millions voters in favor of Clinton.
On the Republican side, a recent episode of CNLive! featured discussion
of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which undecided voters were micro-targeted with tailored advertising narrowed with the combined
use of big data and artificial intelligence known collectively as "dark strategy." CNLive! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan noted that
SCL, Cambridge Analytica's parent company, provides data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations "worldwide,"
specializing in behavior modification. Though Cambridge Analytica shut down in 2018, related companies remain.
The Clinton camp was hardly absent from social media during the 2016 race. The
barely-legal activities of Clintonite David Brock
were previously reported by this author to have included $2 million in funding
for the creation of an online " troll army " under the name Shareblue. The
LA Times described the project as meant to "to appear
to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid
and highly tactical." In other words, the effort attempted to create a false sense of consensus in support for the Clinton campaign.
In terms of interference in the actual election process, the New York City Board of Elections was shown to have
purged over one hundred thousand Democratic voters in Brooklyn from the rolls
before the 2016 primary, a move that the Department of Justice found
broke federal law . Despite this, no prosecution
for the breach was ever attempted.
Though the purge was not explicitly found to have benefitted Clinton, the admission falls in line with allegations across the
country that the Democratic primary was interfered with to the benefit of the former secretary of state. These claims were further
bolstered by reports indicating that voting results from the 2016 Democratic
primary showed evidence of fraud.
DNC Fraud Lawsuit
The proceedings of the DNC fraud lawsuit provide the most damning evidence of the failure of the U.S. election process, especially
within the Democratic Party. DNC defense lawyers argued in open court for the party's
right to appoint candidates at its own discretion, while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the impression that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
In 2017, the Observer reported that the DNC's defense counsel argued
against claims that the party defrauded Sanders' supporters by favoring Clinton, reasoning that Sanders' supporters knew the process
was rigged. Again: instead of arguing that the primary was neutral and unbiased in accordance with its charter, the DNC's lawyers
argued that it was the party's right to select candidates.
The Observer noted the sentiments of Jared Beck, the attorney representing the plaintiffs of the lawsuit:
"People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee -- nominating process
in 2016 were fair and impartial, and that's not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that
we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that's what the Democratic
National Committee's own charter says. It says it in black and white."
The DNC defense counsel's argument throughout the course of the DNC fraud lawsuit doubled down repeatedly in defense of the party's
right to favor one candidate over another, at one point actually claiming that such favoritism was
protected by the First Amendment . The DNC's lawyers wrote:
"To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court
precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to
selecting the party's nominee for public office ." [Emphasis added]
The DNC's shameless defense of its own rigging disemboweled the most fundamental organs of the U.S. body politic. This no indication
that the DNC will not resort to the same tactics in the 2020 primary race,
Tim Canova's Allegations
If Debbie Wasserman Schultz's role as disgraced chairwoman of the DNC and her forced 2016 resignation wasn't enough, serious interference
was also alleged in the wake of two contests between Wasserman Schultz and professor Tim Canova in Florida's 23rd congressional district.
Canova and Wasserman Schultz first faced off in a 2016 Democratic primary race, followed by a 2018 general congressional election
in which Canova ran as an independent.
Tim Canova with supporters, April 2016. (CanovaForCongress, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Debacles followed both contests, including improper vote counts, illegal
ballot destruction , improper
transportation of ballots, and generally
shameless displays of cronyism. After the controversial
results of the initial primary race against Wasserman Schultz, Canova sought to have ballots checked for irregularities, as the
Sun-Sentinel reported at the time:
"[Canova] sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months
later when her office hadn't fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification
that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending."
Ultimately, Canova was granted a summary judgment against Snipes, finding that she had committed what amounted to multiple felonies.
Nonetheless, Snipes was not prosecuted and remained elections supervisor through to the 2018 midterms.
Republicans appear no more motivated to protect voting integrity than the Democrats, with
The Nation reporting that the GOP-controlled Senate
blocked a bill this week that would have "mandated paper-ballot backups in case of election machine malfunctions."
Study of Corporate Power
A 2014
study published by Princeton University found that corporate power had usurped the voting rights of the public: "Economic elites
and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
In reviewing this sordid history, we see that the Democratic Party establishment has done everything in its power to disrespect
voters and outright overrule them in the democratic primary process, defending their right to do so in the DNC fraud lawsuit. We've
noted that interests transcending the DNC also represent escalating threats to election integrity as demonstrated in 2016.
Despite this, establishment Democrats and those who echo their views in the legacy press continue to deflect from their own wrongdoing
and real threats to the election process by suggesting that mere discussion of it represents a campaign by Russia to attempt to malign
the perception of the legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process.
Hillary Clinton's recent comments to the effect that Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is being "groomed" by Russia, and that the former
Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein is a "Russian asset", were soon echoed by DNC-friendly pundits. These sentiments
externalize what Gabbard called the "rot"
in the Democratic party outward onto domestic critics and a nation across the planet.
Newsweek provided a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon in a
recent op-ed penned by columnist Naveed Jamali, a former FBI double agent whose book capitalizes on Russiagate. In an op-ed titled:
" Hillary Clinton Is Right. Tulsi Gabbard Is A Perfect Russian Asset – And Would Be A Perfect Republican Agent," Jamali
argued :
"Moscow will use its skillful propaganda machine to prop up Gabbard and use her as a tool to delegitimize the democratic process.
" [Emphasis added]
Jamali surmises that Russia intends to "attack" our democracy by undermining the domestic perception of its legitimacy. This thesis
is repeated later in the piece when Jamali opines : "They want to see a retreat
of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our
elections." [Emphasis added]
The only thing worth protecting, according to Jamali and those who amplify his work (including former Clinton aide and establishment
Democrat Neera Tanden), is the perception of the democratic process, not the actual functioning vitality of it. Such deflective tactics
ensure that Russia will continue to be used as a convenient international pretext for
silencing domestic dissent as we move into 2020.
Given all this, how can one expect the outcome of a 2020 Democratic Primary -- or even the general election – to be any fairer
or transparent than 2016?
* * *
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter, co-host of CN Live! and regular contributor to Consortium News. If you value this
original article, please consider
making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
"... They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory. ..."
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: " Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit." This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the
defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process.
They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID
corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly
appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued:
" There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an improper attempt to forge the federal courts
into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political party selected its candidate in a presidential
campaign ."
The brief continued:
" To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run directly contrary
to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties,
especially when it comes to selecting the party's nominee for public office."
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process
is protected under the first amendment. If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee
had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent." It seems
here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary
duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the
candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent
finding by the UK Supreme
Court, which stated that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents
of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did in favor the campaign of
Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen.
Elizabeth Vos is the Co-Founder and Editor in Chief at
Disobedient Media .
Like the garbage French elite of long ago,
our American garbage elite of today has
learned nothing and forgotten nothing
.
For four years, it has been focused entirely on deep-sixing Donald Trump for his unforgivable
crime of demanding that our ruling caste be held accountable for its legacy of failure. Instead of
focusing on not being terrible at their job of running America's institutions,
our elitists
have decided that the real problem is us Normals being angry about how they are terrible at their
job of running America's institutions
.
So, let's imagine that they finally vanquish Trump, though every time they come up against him
they end up dragging themselves home like Ned Beatty after a particularly tough canoe trip.
What happens then?
What happens then is that it's back to business as usual,
and for decades,
business as usual for our garbage elite has not merely been running our institutions badly but
pillaging and looting our country for power, prestige and cash.
The difference is that in the future they will be much more careful to ensure that no
one who is not in on the scam will ever again come anywhere near the levers of power.
You
can already see it – the demands that we defer to the bureaucrats they own, the attacks on the idea
of free expression, and the campaign to disarm us. Their objective is no more Trumps, just an
endless line of progressive would-be Maduros with the march toward despair occasionally put on
pause for a term by some
Fredocon
Republican
who hates us Normals just as much as the Dems, but won't admit it until after he's out of office.
Our garbage elite talks a good game about its service and moral superiority, but if our betters
were actually better than us, we would not be having this national conversation about how awful
they are.
The fact is that what they want to do is go back to the way it was before Trump
,
back to 2015, aka the year 1 BT – Before Trump. Back then, progressive Democrats got their bizarre
social pathologies normalized. Moderate Democrats got money, power and an open season on the local
talent. Corporate types represented largely by squishy Republicans got globalism and the ability to
ship our jobs out and import Third World serfs in. And the fake conservatives of Conservative,
Inc., got to cash in without the necessity of actually conserving anything.
The only people that the old system didn't work for were the American people.
It's important to remember and to always remind yourself, that everything our elite says about
its motives and morals is a lie and a scam. Take the whole #MeToo thing. This was supposed to be
some sort of revolutionary rebellion against the sexual exploitation of the powerless by the
powerful. It's not, and never was. Rather, it's simply an internal power struggle among and within
the elites to reallocate power among snooty people who don't give a damn about you or me.
The fall of Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer or any of the other bigwigs means nothing to the
conservative single mom being exploited by the Democrat donors who own Walmart. It was actually
striving female members of the elite – actresses, models, media figures, executives – leveraging
the monstrosity of the creeps at the top to increase their own power
within
the elite. Do
you see any of these #MeToo heroines, now that they have taken their scalps, helping their
non-elite sisters out in Gun-Jesusland? Yeah, right. They are lining up with the rest of their
elite pals to shaft us.
What you do see is excuses.
They excuse Bill Clinton and his enabler
Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. They excuse Gropey Joe. They are in the process of excusing Katie
Hill, whose naked hairbrush photo has ensured that none of us will ever sit on a hotel room chair
again. Why no outrage? Why no concern? Because taking out Stumbles McMyturn or Hoover's Dad or
Congresswoman Every Man's Lesbian Fantasy Destroyer does not help the faction of the elite that
benefited from #MeToo. That would help
us
, but not the elite. Throuple Gal was exposed by
Townhall's peppery sister site Redstate, not the mainstream media, and the mainstream media is
horrified – not by her furniture defilement but that word of it got through the gate they yearn to
keep.
The simple fact is that they desperately want Trump out so they can return to the good
old days of winks, nods, and payoffs.
Look at the Biden Family Crime Syndicate and the antics of the junior capo of the Cosa Nose
Candy. In what universe is it A-OK that the crack-fueled Johnny Appleseed of paternity suits that
is Joe's snortunate son was cashing in on $50K a month in sweet, sweet Ukrainian gas gold just
weeks after Ensign Biden got booted because he tooted? And then there's riding on Air Force Two to
the NBA's favorite dictatorship for some commie ducats. Now there are even some Romanian
shenanigans too – is there a single country on earth that Totally-Not-Senile Joe didn't shake down
for the benefit of his daughter-in-law's second hubby?
But our garbage elite's garbage media seems amazingly uninterested in all this – it's fascinated
by the timing of a situation room snap after Trump unleashed the Army's Delta Force on al-Baghdadi
and by dog medal memes, but the Veep's boy's bag-mannery is not merely of no interest but is
something they close their fussy phalanx ranks around to protect. Keep in mind, the premise
underlying the whole star chamber impeachment festival of onanism is that Donald Trump, America's
chief law enforcement officer, was somehow wrong and bad and double-plus ungood because he
allegedly asked the Ukrainians, "Hey, what's the dealio with the Columbia Kid's pay-offs?"
In a non-bizarro political universe, the proper reaction to the Prezzy demanding,
"You best fork over the evidence on these manifestly corrupt antics involving the Vice-President of
the United States or we're cutting you off from the American taxpayers' feeding trough," would be,
"Hell to the yeah, four more years! Four more years!'
But it's not
, because the elite likes its sexual abuse and its foreign
cash and its total lack of accountability to us, the Normals, the people who are supposed to be the
ones that our elite is working for. The elite has not learned its lesson. It has not admitted that
it sucks and resolved to stop sucking.
Instead, it has doubled down. And if it gets power again, it will act to solve what it sees as
the most urgent problem facing America – the fact that we the people have the ability to reject the
elite's utter incompetence and surpassing greed and elect someone with a mandate to burn down the
whole rotten edifice.
If the elitists get power again, they are never letting go of it, not without a fight.
And now, doesn't the elite's obsessive fixation on shutting down conservative dissent,
eliminating competing institutions (like religious entities), and disarming law-abiding Americans
make a lot more sense?
* * *
Our garbage elite is outraged over the success of my action-packed yet hilarious novels of
America torn apart by liberal malice,
People's
Republic
,
Indian
Country
and
Wildfire
.
In a few weeks, Number IV, Collapse, will drop. They call these books "appalling." They don't want
you to read them. That's better than any blurb!
Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because
today we are not merely transferring power from one
Administration to another, or from one party to another – but
we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it
back to you, the American People.
THAT is what TRUMP said. And it ******* freaks THEM out.
Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because
today we are not merely transferring power from one
Administration to another, or from one party to another – but
we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it
back to you, the American People.
THAT is what TRUMP said. And it ******* freaks THEM out.
Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because
today we are not merely transferring power from one
Administration to another, or from one party to another – but
we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it
back to you, the American People.
THAT is what TRUMP said. And it ******* freaks THEM out.
Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because
today we are not merely transferring power from one
Administration to another, or from one party to another – but
we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it
back to you, the American People.
THAT is what TRUMP said. And it ******* freaks THEM out.
Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because
today we are not merely transferring power from one
Administration to another, or from one party to another – but
we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it
back to you, the American People.
THAT is what TRUMP said. And it ******* freaks THEM out.
Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because
today we are not merely transferring power from one
Administration to another, or from one party to another – but
we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it
back to you, the American People.
THAT is what TRUMP said. And it ******* freaks THEM out.
He never said the elite are the "super rich". Sorry about your
trump derangement syndrome, comrade. Many wealthy in this
country are good people. This author is referencing the "ruling
elite" Washington-Hollywood-Media complex that comprises the
child trafficking lefties in this country: they ARE the fascist
elite who run the censorship platforms in silicon valley, the
hypocrite millionaire socialists like Warren, or the deep state
mouth pieces like Adam Schitt....
Trump is the elite? Trump represents the elite? If that's so
why are the elite trying to take him out? I don't think you
understand who the elite are that the author is referring to.
He's talking about the political elite...the DC power
brokers...the political "establishment."
"For four years, it has been focused entirely on deep-sixing
Donald Trump for his unforgivable crime of demanding that our
ruling caste be held accountable for its legacy of failure."
Donald Trump is our savior? Look at all the elite lackeys he put
in his Cabinet, the exact type of people Kurt Schlichter claims
Trump is removing. Trump passed $1.5 trillion tax cut bill
benefiting the rich, expanded military spending $700 billion.
Chief Economic Advisor - Daniel Cohn - Goldman Sachs
Secretary of State - Rex Tillerson - Exxon Mobil
Secretary of Treasury - Steve Mnuchin - Goldman Sachs
Commerce Secretary - Wilbur Ross - Rothschilds and more
Transportation Secretary - Elaine Chao - wife of Mitch
McConnell, from Chinese family shipping magnate
Secretary of Labor - Andy Puzder - CEO CKE Restaurants
Education Secretary - Betsy DeVos - husband CEO of Amway
"... On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020 federal budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and anti-immigrant policies. Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed from the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of Europe, not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our "endless, ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and saying "The job of our military is not to police the world." ..."
"... This is a high stakes intra-ruling class struggle and neither side cares a fig about what's best for the American people or those beyond our borders. At this point it's impossible to know how it will play out but grasping the underlying dynamics explains much about current U.S. domestic and foreign policy. This understanding may, in turn, point toward how opponents of America's oligarchic elites can most expeditiously use their time and energy. ..."
"... Foremost is the fact that Trump's intra-elite enemies despise him not for being a neo-fascistic demagogue, a despicable human being devoid of a conscience, or for the brouhaha over Ukraine. Their animus is rooted in the conviction that Trump has been a foot dragging imperialist, an equivocal caretaker of empire, unreliable pull-the-trigger Commander-in-chief (e.g.Iran) and transparent truth-teller about the real motives behind U.S. foreign policy. These are his unforgivable sins and if he's impeached or denied the Oval Office by some other means, they will be real reasons. ..."
"... One of Trump's most traitorous acts is that he's been consistent, at least rhetorically, in being opposed to U.S. troops being killed in "endless wars." One need not agree with his reasons to find merit in this worthy objective. His motives probably include Nativism, racism, foreign investment stability, the wars causing more refugees to come here, his massive ego, appeals to his voting base, or simply because he believes both he and the "real America" would be better off. For him, the latter two are synonymous. ..."
"... For this treachery, those arrayed against Trump include at least, the Pentagon-CIA-armaments lobby, MSM editors like those at CNN, The New York Times ..."
Over the past few months President Trump has unilaterally by Tweet and telephone begun to
dismantle the U.S. military's involvement in the Middle East. The irony is amazing, because in
a general overarching narrative sense, this is what the marginalized antiwar movement has been
trying to do for decades.
1
Prof. Harry Targ, in his important piece "United States foreign policy: yesterday, today,
and tomorrow," (MR online, October 23, 2919), reminds us of the factional dispute among U.S.
foreign policy elites over how to maintain the U.S. empire. On the one hand are the neoliberal
global capitalists who favor military intervention, covert operations, regime change,
strengthening NATO, thrusting China into the enemy vacuum and re-igniting the Cold War with
Russia. All of this is concealed behind lofty rhetoric about humanitarianism, protecting human
rights, promoting democracy, fighting terrorism and American exceptionalism. Their mantra is
Madeleine Albright's description of the United States as the world's "one indispensable
nation."
On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist
capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a
permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020 federal
budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and anti-immigrant
policies. Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed
from the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about
NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of Europe,
not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our "endless,
ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and saying "The job
of our military is not to police the world."
I would add that Trump is also an "American exceptionalist" but ascribes a very different
provincial meaning to the term, something closer to a crabbed provincialism, an insular
"Shining City on a Hill," surrounded by a moat.
This is a high stakes intra-ruling class struggle and neither side cares a fig about
what's best for the American people or those beyond our borders. At this point it's impossible
to know how it will play out but grasping the underlying dynamics explains much about current
U.S. domestic and foreign policy. This understanding may, in turn, point toward how opponents
of America's oligarchic elites can most expeditiously use their time and energy.
Foremost is the fact that Trump's intra-elite enemies despise him not for being a
neo-fascistic demagogue, a despicable human being devoid of a conscience, or for the brouhaha
over Ukraine. Their animus is rooted in the conviction that Trump has been a foot dragging
imperialist, an equivocal caretaker of empire, unreliable pull-the-trigger Commander-in-chief
(e.g.Iran) and transparent truth-teller about the real motives behind U.S. foreign policy.
These are his unforgivable sins and if he's impeached or denied the Oval Office by some other
means, they will be real reasons.
One of Trump's most traitorous acts is that he's been consistent, at least rhetorically,
in being opposed to U.S. troops being killed in "endless wars." One need not agree with his
reasons to find merit in this worthy objective. His motives probably include Nativism, racism,
foreign investment stability, the wars causing more refugees to come here, his massive ego,
appeals to his voting base, or simply because he believes both he and the "real America" would
be better off. For him, the latter two are synonymous.
For this treachery, those arrayed against Trump include at least, the
Pentagon-CIA-armaments lobby, MSM editors like those at CNN, The New York Times and
The Washington Post , NSA, Zionist neocons, the DNC, establishment Democrats, some
hawkish Republican senators, many lifestyle liberals still harboring a sentimental faith in
American goodness and even EU and NATO elites who've benefited from being faithful lackeys to
Washington's global imperialism.
In a recent interview, Major Danny Sjursen, retired army officer and West Point instructor
with tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, notes that "The last bipartisan issue in American
politics today is warfare, forever warfare." In terms of the military, that means " even the
hint of getting out of the establishment interventionist status quo is terrifying to these
generals, terrifying to these former intelligence officers from the Obama administration who
seem to live on MSNBC now." Sjursen adds that many of these generals (like Mattis) have already
found lucrative work with the military industrial complex.
2
In response to Trump's announcement about removing some U.S. troops from the region, we find
an op-ed in The New York Times by Admiral William McRaven where he states that Trump
"should be out of office sooner than later. It's time for a new person in the Oval Office,
Republican, Democrat or Independent. The fate of the nation depends on it." The unmistakeable
whiff of support for a soft coup is chilling. If Trump can't be contained, he must be deposed
one way or another.
And this is all entirely consistent with the fact that the national security state was
totally caught off guard by Trump's victory in 2016. For them, Trump was a loose cannon,
erratic and ultra-confrontational, someone they couldn't control. Their favored candidate was
the ever reliable, Wall Street-friendly, war-mongering Hillary Clinton or even Jeb Bush. Today,
barring a totally chastised Trump, the favorites include a fading Biden, Pence, a reprise of
Clinton or someone in her mold but without the baggage.
For Trump's establishment enemies, another closely related failing is his habit of blurting
out inconvenient truths. I'm not the first person to say that Trump is the most honest
president in my lifetime. Yes, he lies most of the time but as left analyst Paul Street puts
it, "Trump is too clumsily and childishly brazen in laying bare the moral nothingness and
selfishness of the real material-historical bourgeois society that lives beneath the veils of
'Western civilization' and 'American democracy.'"
3
All his predecessors took pains or were coached to conceal their imperialist actions behind
declarations of humanitarian interventionism but Trump has pulled the curtains back to reveal
the ugly truths about U.S. foreign policy. As such, the carefully calibrated propaganda fed to
the public in endless reiterations over a lifetime is jeopardized whenever Trump utters a
transparent truth. This is intolerable.
Here are a few examples culled from speeches, interviews and press reports:
+ At a May 10, 2017 Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislayak, Trump said he was unconcerned about Moscow's interference
in the U.S. election because "We do the same thing in elections in other countries." [White
House officials were so alarmed they tried to limit access to the transcript].
+ When asked about whether Putin is a killer, Trump sarcastically asked whether "our
country was so innocent?" and added, "Our country does plenty of killing."
+ His reaction to Saudi Arabia's murder of Khashoggi was that "they really messed up."
[Translation: He/our government didn't care about what happened except that the Saudis
bungled the job. Uttering this inconvenient truth removed the usual fig leaf claim of moral
outrage and checked off another box on the Trump-Must-Go list maintained by the
globalists].
+ "The Kurds are no angels." [This dried up all the crocodile tears being shed by both
Dems and Republicans].
+ On Libya: Asked about a role for the U.S. in Libya, Trump responded "I do not see a
role in Libya. I think the United States has, right now, enough roles. We're in a role
everywhere." He did say "I would just go in and take the oil," and repeated this intention
regarding Syria. [Once again Trump sabotaged any pretense of righteous motives behind
Washington's foreign policy in the Middle East. To wit: It's always been about blood for
oil].
+ When firing John Bolton, his former national security advisor, Trump remarked "He made
some very big mistakes. When he talked about the Libya model for Kim Jong Un, that was not a
good statement to make. You just look at what happened with Gaddafi." [Here, Trump's truth
telling undermined the standard U.S. position by saying it makes perfect sense for other
countries to obtain nukes if they wish to avoid being destroyed by us.]
+ "We're in many, many countries. I do know the exact number of countries we have troops
in but I'm embarrassed to say it because it's so foolish. We're in countries that don't even
like us some people, whether it's – – you call it the military-industrial complex
or beyond that, they'd like me to stay the want me to fight forever That's what they want to
do, fight. A lot of companies want to to fight because they make their weapons based on
fighting, not based on peace. And they take up a lot of people. I want to bring our soldiers
back home."
+ During a private military briefing, Trump stunned officials by scowling, "Seriously,
who gives a shit about Afghanistan?" And he continued, "So far we've in for $7 trillion,
fellas. $7 trillion including Iraq. Worst decision ever "
+ On Ukraine: "The people of Crimea would rather be with Russia than where they
were."
+ On Syria, "Let someone else fight over this long blood stained sand." And more broadly,
he said "The same people that I watched and read -- give me and the United States advice --
were the people I've been watching and reading for many years. They are the ones who got us
into the Middle East mess but never have the vision or courage to get us out. They just
talk."
+ Responding to South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham's criticism: "The people of
South Carolina don't want us to get into another war with Turkey, a NATO member, or with
Syria. Let them fight their own wars."
+ On Middle East wars: "All of those lives lost, the young men and women gravely wounded
-- so many -- the Middle East is less safe, less stable, and less secure than before these
conflicts began."
As noted earlier, the endgame is not in sight. Trump seems without a clear strategy for
moving forward and from all reports he can't depend on his current coterie of White House
advisors to produce one. Further, he may lack the necessary political in-fight skills or
tenacity to see it through. When some of his Republican "allies" savaged his announcement to
withdraw troops from Syria, he backtracked and made some, at least cosmetic concessions.
However, the fact that Trump's position remains popular with his voter base and especially with
veterans of these wars will give pause to Republicans. If some finally join the Democrats in
voting for impeachment over Ukraine-gate they may minimize re-election risks by hiding their
real motives behind pious claims -- as will most Democrats -- about "protecting the
constitution and the rule of law".
Now, lest I be misunderstood, nothing I've written here should be construed as support for
Donald Trump or that I believe he's antiwar. Trump is aberration only in that his brand of
Western imperialism means that the victims remain foreigners while U.S. soldiers remain out of
harm's way. He knows that boots on the ground can quickly descend into bodies in the ground and
unlike his opponents, coffins returning to Dover Air Base are not worth risking his personal
ambitions. This is clearly something to build upon. We don't know if Trump views drones, cyber
warfare and proxies as substitutes but his intra-elite opponents remain extremely dubious. In
any event, that's another dimension to expose and challenge.
Finally, we know the ruling class in a capitalist democracy -- an oxymoron -- expends
enormous time and resources to obtain a faux "consent of the governed" through misinformation
conveyed via massive, lifelong ideological indoctrination. For them, citizen's policing
themselves is more efficient than coercion and precludes raising questions that might
delegitimize the system. Obviously force and fear are hardly unknown -- witness the mass
incarceration and police murder of black citizens -- but one only has to look around to see how
successful this method of control has been.
Nevertheless, as social historian Margaret Jacoby wisely reminds us, "No institution is safe
if people simply stop believing the assumptions that justify its existence."
4 Put another way, the system simply can't accommodate certain "dangerous ideas."
Today, we see promising political fissures developing, especially within the rising
generation, and it's our responsibility to help deepen and widen these openings through
whatever means at our disposal.
"... Monday, that same company which was saved by the United States government was thrown a birthday party in the halls of the United States Congress committee which dispersed those funds? It literally doesn't get more corrupt than that. These people are so shameless they bragged about this party. They allowed it to be reported in Politico because that's just business as usual in our capital city ..."
"... So many on the right lecture the millennial generation and the working class as lazy. They give no credence to why exactly these people are angry. They watched the middle class get decimated, money get sent to Wall Street while our student debt exploded and any surplus cash that happened to be laying around was spent trying to turn the Middle East into a democratic paradise. America voted twice for change-agent Barack Obama to try and clean up the system, but he mostly just lectured corporations with an upturned chin and wagging finger, while letting them continue shipping jobs to China and Mexico. ..."
"... Institutionalized corruption has yielded disastrous results. ..."
The House Ways and Means Committee threw a bipartisan "birthday bash" for insurance company
AIG, that was widely attended by staffers across the aisle. The chairman of the committee,
Richard Neal , who is a
Democrat, gave remarks at the party. It included snacks, and an open bar serving a "centennial
smash" signature cocktail, all while an acapella group serenaded the group to the tune of
Pharrell's "Happy."
This is Versailles 1790's level stuff. It is a repulsive illustration of the bipartisan
corruption that has seeped into our system. Don't forget this is the company received 190
billion dollars in bailout funds while the rest of the American middle class plummeted to
destruction. It's also the same company which paid out $165 million in bonuses to its
executives after receiving bailout money and facing zero repercussions from the Obama
administration.
Monday, that same company which was saved by the United States government was thrown a
birthday party in the halls of the United States Congress committee which dispersed those
funds? It literally doesn't get more corrupt than that. These people are so shameless they
bragged about this party. They allowed it to be reported in Politico because that's just
business as usual in our capital city
Corporatism does not know any party. It has wormed its way into the highest levels of the
United States government. It has ruled us to our detriment now for almost 40 years now. The
left has responded to this moment with democratic socialism. The right looking at this movement
is learning all of the wrong reasons; they're flying socialism sucks banners all across America
without responding to the underlying structure of the American system as extraordinarily
flawed
So many on the right lecture the millennial generation and the working class as lazy. They
give no credence to why exactly these people are angry. They watched the middle class get
decimated, money get sent to Wall Street while our student debt exploded and any surplus cash
that happened to be laying around was spent trying to turn the Middle East into a democratic
paradise. America voted twice for change-agent Barack Obama to try and clean up the system, but
he mostly just lectured corporations with an upturned chin and wagging finger, while letting
them continue shipping jobs to China and Mexico.
Institutionalized corruption has yielded disastrous results. A new survey from the Victims
of Communism Memorial Foundation finds that more than 70% of millennials say they are likely to
vote socialist, and that 1 in 5 think that America would be better off if private property was
abolished. This makes perfect sense to me, because this generation sees the AIG bailout and the
party 10 years later and goes, well if that's capitalism, then this crap is not for me
I know some of the people watching this probably are actual socialists. I don't think most
of you are though. You're just fed up and you've been told that if you're against our current
system then you're a socialist. So you shrug and go, sure, I guess. It is incumbent upon the
right to restore and equitable and fair playing field within our system if we, correctly in my
view, believe that capitalism is intrinsic to the strength of the United States
The libertarian streak of the Republican Party will be the electoral and moral death of it.
Libertarianism was founded upon the idea that the greatest threat to you and your life is
institutionalized power in the form of the government. It's time they understood that the
government isn't the only institution which can hold power in our society. It's time to reign
in that power wherever it reigns.
For the Furrowed Brow Society, things are finally looking up. Small in number and feeble
in influence, so-called "Never Trumper" Republicans have spent three years now peeking out
from behind the congressional drapes to express dismay over President Trump's antics.
Your John Kasiches, your Mitt Romneys, your Bens Sasse: They are among a handful of
national Republican figures who all reliably emerge to criticize Trump on the occasion of his
latest embarrassment. After every new indignity, the informal society assembles like an
ineffectual version of the Avengers. Picture Captain America and Iron Man just sort of
grunting ruefully and shaking their heads while they watch Fox News.
Has this resulted in any noticeable change in the president's policy or demeanor? Of
course not. Will the Republican Party finally come to its senses and turn to this crew to
lead it into the future? Also no.
. . . But!
The air of desperation surrounding the president these days has to be heartening. Even
some Frequent Trumpers are starting to wonder whether it might be time to get off the train.
Suddenly, the Never Trumpers are so ascendant that Trump is lashing out at them, pleading
with his administration officials to stop giving them jobs (this would seem to be within his
control, but whatever).
And so we've reached a remarkable moment in the discourse: Some of these people seem
positively delighted to be called -- this is almost unbelievable, but I promise it's true --
"human scum."
"The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain
ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats," Trump tweeted
on Wednesday afternoon, amid a fairly standard-issue tirade and blizzard of bonkers retweets.
"Watch out for them, they are human scum!"
Hey, at least he called them "human," which is more grace than he usually affords
immigrants. But even in today's uniquely debased political culture, the phrase "human scum"
would seem to rise below our very low bar. And yet . . .
"Apparently, I'm human scum," the conservative cybersecurity expert and former homeland
security official Paul Rosenzweig wrote in The Atlantic, in a column headlined "I'm Proud to
Be Called Human Scum."
If you're keeping score at home, the Republican Party is now overwhelmingly composed of
people gleefully calling themselves "deplorable," and a separate, opposed group proudly
self-identifying as "human scum."
Extremely normal, healthy stuff.
So I reached out to one of the few Republicans I could think of who does not seem to be in
a hurry to brand himself as some sort of nightmare person -- who seems to genuinely want to
rise above all this: America's Most Popular Governor™ Charlie Baker. Baker doesn't
spend a lot of time firing back at the president's daily dumpster fire, which is probably
wise.
"Governor Baker and Lt. Governor Polito did not support President Trump because he doesn't
have the right temperament for the office," Baker's press secretary, Sarah Finlaw, said in an
e-mail, "and the administration doesn't respond to sophomoric name-calling and will stay
focused on working for the residents of Massachusetts. Washington, DC would be well served to
follow suit."
So if he wasn't on the human scum list before, he probably is now. Sorry about that,
Governor.
It's tempting to think that people like Baker, Bill Weld, and Romney (who must have
thought everyone was telling him to "grow a Pierre" these last few years) will one day soon
restore the Republican Party to some semblance of sanity. Even if you don't have much use for
the small government/fiscal conservatism that supposedly drove the Republican Party before it
abandoned even the pretense of responsibility, that ethos would be a lot less damaging than
what we've got now.
But I'm not sure that kind of reversal is even possible anymore. Nobody who abetted this
nonsense should be taken seriously ever again, but that category includes the vast majority
of elected Republicans in Washington. ...
My thought about Barr holding fire on Epstein is that he may have known that was a red
herring, false flag, or whatever you want to call it. That whole Epstein affair sounded like
a juicy distraction to me, in the manner of "if it bleeds it leads". When someone actually
dies who is the center of contraversial activity, you may be sure, unfortunately, that
someone, he or another, is getting close to truths that ought not see the light of day.
Somewhat in the nature of the baiting of Putin as Ukraine was beginning its time of troubles.
The old revolutionary dictum "Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes" may have
been in Barr's mind at the time of Epstein's demise.
Certainly such investigations as the one he is involved in take much time to sort out the
who-what-where in terms sufficiently damaging to become a credible enterprise. We have seen
such attempts fail in the past. I hope he takes his time and gets all his ducks in a row
before the hammer falls as fall it must. It is so vital to this country that this attempt
succeed; for if it fails only the shambles of Kiev style fisticuffs in Congress can be the
result. Not pretty.
In b's post we are reminded of the power of the press to misinform. I would suggest we
badly need divestiture of our media from the huge corporations now more wealthy than some
countries. The latter are too powerful in this country now, and they do need to be whittled
down to size. We not only need fact finders, we need eloquent voices to present those facts
to the public. We need free speech!
He is a deep state creature...his father Donald Barr was an OSS guy and original CIA
[which morphed from the wartime OSS]...
Barr senior was also Epstein's mentor and got him his start at the deeply establishment
Dalton School [and probably Epstein's handler as an asset or 'agent' as they are
called]...
So things go a bit deeper than the surface when it comes to Barr junior...and what he is
doing here...
There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore...
I would also agree with the theory that says that these two 'deep' factions ['nationalist'
vs 'globalist'] are at war...with the 'DNC-Hillary-MSM-interventionist faction' possibly on
the decline, but still powerful enough to blow up a lot of the plans that Trump and his deep
backers would like to get done...
Epstein is a whole 'nuther can of worms here and I would not be surprised if he was not
actually dead...Trump himself is deeply entangled with many of the prime players in the
Epstein web...it all depends if he is more useful alive than dead...
Btw...pulling off a deception like a fake death is kindergarten level for these kinds of
operators and the unlimited resources they possess to shape so-called 'reality' as brought to
us on our little screens...
So really I find it kind of silly that the right wingers are looking at Barr as some kind
of White Knight...there really are none of those in these circles...as much as the sheeple
would like to believe that...
re: source of "God has an infinite sense of humor"...
Was told that in 1994[?] conversation w Jerry, a fellow worker, abt the baffling condition
of Mankind. Never heard it before or since. At the time it was one of most incisive and
impinging viewpoints; it still is.
It was said to me dryly, not coy and no smile, almost plaintively as tho it would be
ignored and pass thru unrecognized. I never met a more rational or sharper mind.
Once, I remarked I was looking for an obscure book that was mentioned in another book, as
"1 of the 3 best autobios ever written in English" by someone I never heard of. J:"Who and
what?" Me:"Kropotkin and Revolutionist".
J:"Oh, sure! I think my wife still has a copy" and he brought it in next day.[An awesome
read, too!]
Thanks for your reply! I was also thinking that perhaps it was a cynical observation made
by a stoic son of a Baptist or Methodist Minister, like the retort in M*A*S*H about
how someone like that (Hawkeye, IIRC) got into the Army--"He got drafted," which caused the
audience to erupt in laughter (definitely a context-dependent joke).
flankerbandit 111
"There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore..."
I think this what is occuring. And when Trump says swamp, I think it is the section of the
swamp that this faction believe set the US on a ruinous path.
Good post my friend, no wonder the demoncrazies went berserk over Trump dipping in to
their honeypot. I could never definitively find a reason for those spectacular ammunition
storage bonfires in Ukraine. I figured it was either to disable their sale or cover up
theft.
W. Gruff, thanks for the process insight.
I was long-aware the removal of the Smith-Mundt Act was loaded into the 2012 NDAA. No attempt
on Trump's watch has been made to bring a needed, modern form of it back. I didn't vote for
Trump, and until the damn looney media is reeled back into factual, in-context reporting, it
will remain obvious Trump is only expanding a variety of nefarious things on the absence of
legislation such as the S-M Act.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich.
The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's
family only makes me more certain that they will get away with this heist like they've done
with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
"... "I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt." ..."
"... "We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where the media would have played such a role? ..."
"... "I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said. ..."
The anti- Trump "Resistance" has devastated core American
institutions and broken longstanding political norms in seeking to defeat and now oust from office President Donald Trump, said Kimberley
Strassel, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and member of the Journal's editorial board.
"And this, to me, is the irony, right? We've been told for three years that Donald Trump is wrecking institutions," Strassel
said in an interview with The Epoch Times for the "American Thought Leaders" program.
" But in terms of real wreckage to institutions, it's not on Donald Trump that public faith in the
FBI and the
Department of Justice has precipitously fallen.
That's because of Jim Comey and Andy McCabe. It's not on Donald Trump that the Senate confirmation process for the Supreme Court
is in ashes after what happened to Brett Kavanaugh. It's not on Donald Trump that we are turning
impeachment into a partisan political tool."
The damage inflicted by the anti-Trump Resistance is the subject of Strassel's new book, "Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump
Haters Are Breaking America."
Strassel uses the term "haters" deliberately, to differentiate this demographic from Trump's "critics."
In Strassel's view, all thoughtful critics of Trump - and she counts herself among them - would look at Trump the same way that
they have examined past presidents - namely, to call him out when he does something wrong, but also laud him when he does something
right.
" The 'haters' can't abide nuance. To the Resistance, any praise - no matter how qualified - of Trump is tantamount to American
betrayal, " Strassel writes in "Resistance (At All Costs)."
She told The Epoch Times: "Up until the point at which Donald Trump was elected, what happened when political parties lost is
that they would retreat, regroup, lick their wounds, talk about what they did wrong.
"That's not what happened this time around. Instead, you had people who essentially said we should have won."
From the moment Trump was elected, this group believed Trump to be an illegitimate president and therefore felt they could use
whatever means necessary to remove him from office , Strassel said.
'Unprecedented Acts'
"One thing I try really hard to do in this book is enunciate what rules and regulations and standards were broken, what political
boundaries were crossed, because I think that that's where we're seeing the damage," Strassel said.
The "unprecedented acts" of the Resistance have caused the public to lose trust in longstanding institutions such as the FBI,
the CIA, and the Department of Justice, and cheapened important political processes like impeachment, she said.
The Resistance fabricated and pushed the theory that it was Trump's collusion with Russia that won him the presidency, not the
support of the American people, and lied about the origins of the so-called evidence -- the Steele dossier -- that was used by the
FBI to justify a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, Strassel said.
"We have never, in the history of this country, had a counterintelligence investigation into a political campaign," she said.
In an anecdote that Strassel recounts in her book, she asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)
if there was anything in America's laws that could have prohibited this situation.
Nunes, who had helped write or update many laws concerning the powers of the intelligence community, replied, "I would never have
conceived of the FBI using our counterintelligence capabilities to target a political campaign.
"If it had crossed any of our minds, I can guarantee we'd have specifically written: 'Don't do that.'"
In Strassel's view, the Resistance is partially fueled by deep-seated anger, or what others have termed "Trump derangement syndrome"
-- an inability to look rationally at a man so far outside of Washington norms.
But at the same time, in Strassel's view, much of the Resistance is motivated by a desire to amass political power using whatever
means necessary.
"That involves removing the president who won. That involves some of these other things that you hear them talking about now:
packing the Supreme Court, getting rid of the electoral college, letting 16-year-olds vote," she said.
"These are not reforms. Reforms are things that the country broadly agrees are going to help improve stuff. This is changing
the rules so that you get power, and you stay in power."
The impeachment inquiry into the president, based on his phone call with Ukraine's president, is just another example of how the
Resistance is violating political norms and relying on flimsy evidence to try to remove him from office, she said.
Testimony in the inquiry has taken place behind closed doors, led by three House committees, and Democrats have so far refused
to release transcripts from the depositions of former and current
State Department employees.
"[Impeachment] is one of the most serious and huge powers in the Constitution. It was meant always by the founders to be reserved
for truly unusual circumstances. They debated not even putting it in because they were concerned that this is what would happen,"
Strassel said.
In the impeachment inquiries against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Strassel said, American leaders "understood the great importance
of convincing the American public that their decision to use this tool was just and legitimate.
"So if you look back at Watergate, they had hundreds of hours of testimony broadcast over TV that people tuned into and watched.
It's one of the reasons that Richard Nixon resigned before the House ever held a final impeachment vote on him, because the public
had been convinced. He knew he had to go," she said.
But now, instead of access to the testimonies, the public is receiving only leaked snippets and dueling narratives.
"You have Democrats saying, 'Oh, this is very bad.' And Republicans saying, 'Oh, it's not so bad at all.' What are Americans
supposed to think?" Strassel said.
Bureaucratic Resistance
Within the federal bureaucracy, there is a "vast swath of unelected officials" who have "a great deal of power to slow things
down, mess things up, file the whistleblower complaints, leak information, actively engage against the president's policies," Strassel
said.
"It's their job to implement his agenda. And yet a lot of them are part of the Resistance, too," she said.
Data shows that in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, government bureaucrats overwhelmingly contributed toward the
Clinton campaign over the Trump campaign.
Ninety-five percent, or about $1.9 million, of bureaucrats' donations went to Clinton, according to
The Hill's analysis of donations from federal workers up until September 2016. In particular, employees at the Department of
Justice gave 97 percent of their donations to Clinton. For the State Department, it was even higher -- 99 percent.
"Imagine being a CEO and showing up and knowing that 95 percent of your workforce despises you and doesn't want you to be there,"
Strassel said.
Strassel pointed to when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, publicly questioned
the constitutionality of Trump's immigration ban and directed Justice Department employees to disobey the order.
"It was basically a call to arms," Strassel said. "What she should've done is honorably resigned if she felt that she could
not in any way enforce this duly issued executive order.
"It really kicked off what we have seen ever since then: The nearly daily leaks from the administration, the whistleblower
complaints," as well as "all kind of internal foot-dragging and outright obstruction to the president's agenda."
According to a
report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, in Trump's first 126 days in office, his administration
"faced 125 leaked stories -- one leak a day -- containing information that is potentially damaging to national security under the
standards laid out in a 2009 Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama."
Activist Media
Strassel says the media has played a critical role in bolstering the anti-Trump Resistance.
"I've been a reporter for 25 years," Strassel said.
"I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years
is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt."
Along the way, the media have largely abandoned journalistic standards, "whether it be the use of anonymous sources, whether it
be putting uncorroborated accusations into the paper, whether it's using biased sources for information and cloaking them as neutral
observers," she said.
Among the many examples of media misinformation cited in Strassel's book is a December 2017 CNN piece that claimed to have evidence
that then-candidate Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. had been offered early access to hacked emails from the Democratic National
Committee. But it turned out
the date was wrong . Trump
Jr. had received an email about the WikiLeaks release one day after WikiLeaks had made the documents public.
"If it hurts Donald Trump, they're on board," Strassel said. And in many cases, the attacks on Trump have been contradictory.
"He's either the dunce you claim he is every day or he's the most sophisticated Manchurian candidate that the world has ever
seen. You can't have it both ways.
"He's either a dictator and an autocrat who is consolidating power around himself to rule with an iron fist, or he's the evil
conservative who's cutting regulations."
Contrary to claims of authoritarianism, Trump has significantly decreased the size of the federal government. Notably, he reduced
the Federal Register, a collection of all the national government's rules and regulations, to the lowest it's been since Bill Clinton's
first year in office.
"You can't be a libertarian dictator," Strassel said.
In addition to the barrage of attacks on Trump, the media has actively sought to "de-legitimize anybody who has a different viewpoint
than they do, or who is reporting the facts and the story in a way other than they would like them to be presented."
"They would love to make it sound as though none of us are worthy of writing about this story," she said.
"The media is supposed to be our guardrails, right? When a political party transgresses a political boundary, they're supposed
to say 'No, that's beyond the pale.'"
Instead, "they indulged this behavior," Strassel said.
"We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where
the media would have played such a role?
"In a way, I blame that for so much else that has gone wrong."
Long-Term Consequences
Strassel says the actions taken by the Resistance will have long-term consequences for America.
"I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said.
For example, if Joe Biden wins the presidency in 2020
but Republicans take back the House, would the Republican-dominated House immediately launch impeachment proceedings against Biden
for alleged corruption in Ukraine?
"I wouldn't necessarily use the word [corruption], but there's a lot of Republicans who happily would. And if they thought
they'd get another shot at the White House, why not?" Strassel said.
It's short-term thinking, she said, just like Sen. Harry Reid's decision in 2013 to drop the number of votes needed to overcome
a filibuster for lower-court judges.
"Did he really stop to think about the fact that it paved the way for Republicans to get rid of the filibuster for Supreme
Court judges?" Strassel said.
If there's any rule in Washington, "it's that when you set the bar low, it just keeps going lower," Strassel said.
"Donald Trump is going to be president for at most another five years. But the actions and the destruction that's coming with
some of this could be with us for a very long time," she said.
"Should anyone allow their deep disregard for one particular man to so change the structure and the fabric of the country?"
In trying to make up for my ignorance on Rome's history I came across P. A. Brunt's
"Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic." His account of the innovation of the office of the
tribune gave me a good sense of the intensity of those conflicts:
"In 494 a great body of the plebs sat down en masse outside Rome and refused to serve in
the army. Such a 'secession' or strike undoubtedly occurred in 287, and similar revolutionary
action must have been taken now, to account for the concession the patricians were forced to
make: the creation of the tribunate of the plebs. The ten tribunes were plebeians annually
elected by an assembly organized in voting units calle tribes; these were local divisions of
the state, originally four within the city and seventeen in the adjoining countryside. This
assembly was truly democratic at the start, when the tribes were probably more or less equal
in numbers; the rich had no superior voting power.
The original function of the tribunes was to protect humble Romans against oppression by
the magistrates; they did so by literally stepping between them and their intended victims
(intercessio). The magistrates did not dare touch their persons, which were 'sacrosanct';
that meant that the whole plebs were sworn to avenge them by lynching whoever laid hands on
them. But their power was confined to the city; outside the walls, Roman territory was still
too insecure for any restriction to be allowable on the discretion of the magistrates to act
as they thought best for the public safety. This limitation on tribunician power subsisted
throughout the Republic, long after its rationale had disappeared." p.52
In this light, it seems that the obstructionist quality of tribunician power that Yves'
refers to stemmed from the original need to allow plebs to put the kabosh on patrician power
to avoid revolution. Another instance of when peace brought about by a veto power eventually
makes the veto power appear unnecessary.
The limitation on the power of the tribunes in rural areas was relevant to a factor in
Rome's development Brunt places a lot of weight on: the breakdown of plebian farmholding, in
part through loss of land through absence brought about by conscription, but also by
patrician gang violence. In his telling this alienation by dispossession was ongoing to
varying degrees during the Republic.
During the New Deal, the union leaders were effectively tribunes without veto power, but
still considerable influence as they controlled a large number of voters belonging to
respective unions.
Similar short story was with Russian "Soviets" -- worker and peasant consuls until Stalin
centralization of governance. They were kind of power check on Bolshevik party Politburo (a
kind of Senate, the Bolsheviks party nobility )
If we assume that most politicians are latent psychopaths, they need to be more tightly controlled by the people. which means no
re-election of Senators after two terms.
Notable quotes:
"... " Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths . I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this... That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow -- but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one." ..."
" Politicians
are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths . I think you would find no expert in the field of
sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this... That a small minority of human beings literally
have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow -- but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly
deceitful political behavior being one."
- Dr. Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former instructor at Harvard Medical School
The answer, then and now, remains the same:
None . There is
no difference between psychopaths and politicians. Nor is there much of a difference between the havoc wreaked on innocent lives by uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, irresponsible,
parasitic criminals and
elected officials who lie to their constituents , trade political favors for campaign contributions, turn a blind eye to the
wishes of the electorate, cheat taxpayers out of hard-earned dollars, favor the corporate elite, entrench the military industrial
complex, and spare little thought for the impact their thoughtless actions and hastily passed legislation might have on defenseless
citizens.
Charismatic politicians, like criminal psychopaths,
exhibit a failure to accept responsibility for their actions , have a high sense of self-worth, are chronically unstable, have
socially deviant lifestyles, need constant stimulation, have parasitic lifestyles and possess unrealistic goals.
It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Democrats or Republicans.
Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with
seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds
. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies: totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in
general and those who exercise their freedoms.
Once psychopaths gain power, the result is usually some form of totalitarian government or a pathocracy. "At that point, the
government operates against the interests
of its own people except for favoring certain groups," author James G. Long notes. "We are currently witnessing deliberate polarizations
of American citizens, illegal actions, and massive and needless acquisition of debt. This is
typical of psychopathic systems
, and very similar things happened in the Soviet Union as it overextended and collapsed."
In other words, electing a psychopath to public office is tantamount to national hara-kiri, the ritualized act of self-annihilation,
self-destruction and suicide. It signals the demise of democratic government and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian regime that
is legalistic, militaristic, inflexible, intolerant and inhuman.
Incredibly, despite clear evidence of the damage that has already been inflicted on our nation and its citizens by a psychopathic
government, voters continue to elect psychopaths to positions of power and influence.
According to investigative journalist
Zack Beauchamp , "In 2012, a group of psychologists evaluated every President from Washington to Bush II
using 'psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality
data completed by historical experts on each president.' They found that presidents tended to have the psychopath's characteristic
fearlessness and low anxiety levels -- traits that appear to help Presidents, but also
might
cause them to make reckless decisions that hurt other people's lives."
The willingness to prioritize power above all else, including the welfare of their fellow human beings, ruthlessness, callousness
and an utter lack of conscience
are among the defining traits of the sociopath.
When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered,
mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, jailed if we dare step
out of line, and then punished unjustly without remorse -- all the while refusing to own up to its failings -- we are no longer operating
under a constitutional republic.
Worse, psychopathology is not confined to those in high positions of government. It can
spread like a virus among the populace.
As an academic study into pathocracy
concluded , "[T]yranny does not flourish because perpetuators are helpless and ignorant of their actions. It flourishes because
they actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as virtuous."
People don't simply line up and salute. It is through one's own personal identification with a given leader, party or social order
that they become agents of good or evil.
Much depends on how leaders "
cultivate a sense of identification with their followers ," says Professor Alex Haslam. "I mean one pretty obvious thing is that
leaders talk about 'we' rather than 'I,' and actually what leadership is about is cultivating this sense of shared identity about
'we-ness' and then getting people to want to act in terms of that 'we-ness,' to promote our collective interests. . . . [We] is the
single word that has increased in the inaugural addresses over the last century . . . and the other one is 'America.'"
The goal of the modern corporate state is obvious: to promote, cultivate, and embed a sense of shared identification among its
citizens. To this end, "we the people" have become "we the police state."
We are fast becoming slaves in thrall to a faceless, nameless, bureaucratic totalitarian government machine that relentlessly
erodes our freedoms through countless laws, statutes, and prohibitions.
Any resistance to such regimes depends on the strength of opinions in the minds of those who choose to fight back. What this means
is that we the citizenry must be very careful that we are not manipulated into marching in lockstep with an oppressive regime.
But what does this really mean in practical terms?
It means holding politicians accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff using every available means at our disposal:
through investigative journalism (what used to be referred to as the Fourth Estate) that enlightens and informs, through whistleblower
complaints that expose corruption, through lawsuits that challenge misconduct, and through protests and mass political action that
remind the powers-that-be that "we the people" are the ones that call the shots.
Remember, education precedes action. Citizens need to the do the hard work of educating themselves about what the government is
doing and how to hold it accountable. Don't allow yourselves to exist exclusively in an echo chamber that is restricted to views
with which you agree. Expose yourself to multiple media sources, independent and mainstream, and think for yourself.
For that matter, no matter what your political leanings might be, don't allow your partisan bias to trump the principles that
serve as the basis for our constitutional republic. As Beauchamp notes, "A system that actually holds people accountable to the broader
conscience of society may be one of the best ways to keep conscienceless people in check."
That said, if we allow the ballot box to become our only means of pushing back against the police state, the battle is already
lost.
Resistance will require a citizenry willing to be active at the local level.
Yet as I point out in my book
Battlefield America: The War
on the American People , if you wait to act until the SWAT team is crashing through your door, until your name is placed on a
terror watch list, until you are reported for such outlawed activities as collecting rainwater or letting your children play outside
unsupervised, then it will be too late.
This much I know: we are not faceless numbers. We are not cogs in the machine. We are not slaves.
We are human beings, and for the moment, we have the opportunity to remain free -- that is, if we tirelessly advocate for our
rights and resist at every turn attempts by the government to place us in chains.
The Founders understood that our freedoms do not flow from the government. They were not given to us only to be taken away by
the will of the State. They are inherently ours. In the same way, the government's appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine
our freedoms, but to safeguard them.
Until we can get back to this way of thinking, until we can remind our fellow Americans what it really means to be free , and
until we can stand firm in the face of threats to our freedoms, we will continue to be treated like slaves in thrall to a bureaucratic
police state run by political psychopaths.
The solution, dear Zerohedge, is to pass a law demanding any official's psychological profile for public scrutiny. (By humans
and by our superiors, Artificial Intelligence.)
Bravo! The inner workings of psychopathy. All is justified. Included the Joker cults 911 mass murder with dancing after the
fact. I want to see real dancing Israelis now. Dancing like hell to try to save their own murderous lives now. That's what we
do with murderers out here in the west. We line them up and watch them DANCE for their lives.
What I find hilarious is the psychopathic politicians/bureaucrats/cia-fbi types/all matter of deep staters getting upset at
Trumps words/tweets/style.
Pilfering the country for profit perfectly ok. Unseemly (by their standards) speech or tweets are not.
See, while they are pilfering Uncle Sam, ie you, they do it with charm (one of the strongest signs of a psychopath) and manners.
What a narcissist/psychopath fears most is being outed as a fraud. And unfortunately, as long as Washington DC plays nice, throws
in some lines about American values, helping the less fortunate, helping the kids, the majority fall in line with their pilfering,
and whatever they want goes.
What they fear most about Trump is he hurts their Big Government brand. Either by his rhetoric, his logic, his investigative
actions, or his brassness. This also includes Republicans, who only fell in line when the base forced them to fall in line.
'Altogether, there are 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) with party registration;
in the others, such as Virginia, voters register without reference to party. Among the party
registration states are some of the nation's most populous: California, New York, Florida,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arizona, and Massachusetts.
The basic facts: In 19 states and the District, there are more registered Democrats than
Republicans. In 12 states, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats. In
aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans,
and 28% are independents. Nationally, the Democratic advantage in the party registration
states approaches 12 million.' ...
The most populous dozen states have enough electoral votes
to decide presidential elections. Most are in Dem hands,
but a few are not. However, many of the remaining
less populous states have electoral vote advantages
(2 more votes than they would have if electoral vote
distribution were strictly based on population) and
they are dominated by GOP voters.
It strikes me that the electorate is really dominated
by independent voters, not party-affiliated, and this
makes the process potentially much less polarized in
reality than some make it out to be. (yes, independent
voters are said to vote along party lines *anyway*, but
this is because there are effectively only two parties
to vote for, given that 'splinter' parties are practically
useless & ultimately disruptive.)
But it remains an interesting strategy to continue to
insist that polarization is on-going, increasing, and
will ultimately destroy US politics. It had better not.
"But it remains an interesting strategy to continue to insist that polarization is on-going,
increasing, and will ultimately destroy US politics. It had better not."
You can deny that polarization is increasing.
Opposite sides now do not listen to each other and resort to war propaganda methods. This
is visible on this blog too. Each side sing their own song, paying little or no attention to
the arguments of the other side.
Another interesting sign of polarization is that on most important cases Congress votes
now strictly along the party lines.
And in Congressional committees Demorats abuse their dominance to the extent previously
impossible: Obsessed with Russiagate sad clown Schiff is a typical example here. Example of
both polarization and degradation at the same time.
"In our modern age, the continuation of racially based violent extremism, particularly
violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation," said Kevin McAleenan, the
acting director of homeland security.
Homeland Security Dept. Affirms Threat of White Supremacy
After Years of Prodding https://nyti.ms/2oTNJmQ
NYT - Zolan Kanno-Youngs - October 1
WASHINGTON -- The Department of Homeland Security is beginning to address white
supremacist terrorism as a primary security threat, breaking with a decade of flagging
attention after bigoted mass shooters from New Zealand to Texas took the lives of nearly 100
people in the last six months.
In a little-noticed strategy document (*) published last month to guide law enforcement on
emerging threats and in recent public appearances by Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary
of homeland security, the department is trying to project a new vigilance about violent white
nationalism, beating back criticism that the agency has spent a decade playing down the
issue.
"I would like to take this opportunity to be direct and unambiguous in addressing a major
issue of our time. In our modern age, the continuation of racially based violent extremism,
particularly violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation," Mr. McAleenan
said during an address last month, describing white nationalism as one of the most dangerous
threats to the United States.
The department's new stance contrasts that of President Trump, who has repeatedly
dismissed white supremacy as an insignificant fringe movement. But beyond words and
documents, many officials trying to combat the threat throughout the country remain skeptical
that the full weight of federal law enforcement is finally being used to give bigoted
domestic terrorism the attention it deserves. ...
* (Could be this.)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
FOR COUNTERING TERRORISM AND TARGETED VIOLENCE
"... CIA decided under Dulles that they were the only ones capable of leading this country, mainly because they wanted it ran their way and no other. Don't take my word for it though, read Arthur B. Darling's "THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT TO 1950 copy right 1990 Penn State Press. (This work was classified for quite a long while.) ..."
"... So the first thing that works in CIA et al's favor is politicians who have been in DC long enough to be worn down and thoroughly compromised by blackmail of one sort or another and there fore vulnerable. ..."
It has been my contention that Biden's powerful backers from the
military-industrial-intelligence-media complex are fully aware of his mental state, and that
is precisely why they want him to be president. Why? He would only be a figure-head
president. He would be given a suggested running mate as well as a list of candidates for
cabinet and other appointed positions (as Obama was given) and Biden would follow that in
making appointments. Policies of his administration would be consistent with the interests of
the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex.
robert e williamson jr , September 20, 2019 at 15:19
Kids this is exactly what the intelligence community wants, someone who they can claim
needs to be told what to do or be kept discreetly out of the loop, so currently Joe maybe the
chosen one just as Bill Barr is reported to have told Slick Willy.
We end up where we are at the moment because our security state apparatus is ran by the
intelligence community who do not really want a strong intelligent, clear minded president
who can actually think for himself. Ask Barrack Obama!
For years I've used this analogy, crude as it maybe, that when the newly elected president
is called on for his national security briefing it is always a tense encounter because this
"Newby" is about to have a come to Jesus meeting with this most abusive of all government
entities. The intelligence community. He is "shown the way"he will act because if he doesn't
this community who has relieved him of one his go -- -s will come and relieve him of the
other.
This started as a joke on my part, I'm now convinced it reflects reality.
At some point many here will understand that since around the time of the murder of JFK ,
CIA has framed things in this manner.
CIA decided under Dulles that they were the only ones capable of leading this country,
mainly because they wanted it ran their way and no other. Don't take my word for it though,
read Arthur B. Darling's "THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT TO
1950 copy right 1990 Penn State Press. (This work was classified for quite a long
while.)
Doing so will help make your mind more flexible , jeesh what a slog to get through it.
So the first thing that works in CIA et al's favor is politicians who have been in DC
long enough to be worn down and thoroughly compromised by blackmail of one sort or another
and there fore vulnerable.
I figured if Caitlin could say "dog balls " which I think was a great analogy I could say
gonads.
Time to sit down Joe.
Thanks again to Consortium News for their great efforts at informing the masses.
Homoploutia, a concept I introduce in "Capitalism, Alone". In today's liberal capitalism,
it is common that the same people are rich *both* in terms of capital they own and earnings
they receive. This was almost unheard of in classical capitalism where capitalists seldom
doubled as wage workers.
So here, using @lisdata, you have a nice illustration of advanced capitalist countries
where people in the top decile by capital and labor income increasing coincide (right end)
and Brazil and Mexico where they do not.
Note the ambivalence * of homoploutia: in some sense it is desirable (and risk-reducing)
that capitalists also work, or that high earners possess capital too. But in another way, it
makes inequality-reducing policies more difficult.
Yes, under neoliberalism like under Bolshevism, your social position is not determined solely
by the capital you own. It is also determined by the position you hold in the industry or
government (and your earnings/wages are derivative of that).
So we see the reincarnation of the idea of Soviet Nomenklatura on a new level in a
different social system. The term can still serve its purpose, and IMHO is better than
"Homoploutia."
It is also interesting that older middle-class folk, who due to their private savings,
401K, Roth and ISA accounts, SS pension (say $6K-7K a month for a couple), and sometimes
government or industry pension are formally millionaires (with some multimillionaires) are
not generally viewed as belonging to the upper 10%. They are looked at as an aberration by
the most sociologists.
That's because they are now retired and no longer hold any meaningful for the upper 10%
level position in the industry or government. In other words, they do not belong to
Nomenklatura. Or more correctly no longer belong to Nomenklatura (for those who retired from
high level positions)
And, correspondingly, often are treated as junk in the neoliberal society.
Agree with respect to points 1 and 2 but is at least Kotkin's is a bit more insightful
than the recent Markovits book on meritocracy. In the latter, Markovits divides the entire
country into middle class and elites, with the owners and Kotkin's clerisy combined and
subject to the same structure, rewards and stresses.
Never a mention of capital or ownership of the means of production. Guess one should not
be shocked that a Yale professor considers himself elite, but a little surprising that he
does not understand that he serves at the pleasure of the owners. That's a club and he's not
in it as the comic-laureate Carlin would say. A little class consciousness goes a long
way.
This is the conflict between financial elite and Silicon Valley modules against traditional manufactures and extractive
industries like oil, gas, coil, iron ore, etc.
Notable quotes:
"... The First Estate, once the province of the Catholic Church, has morphed into what Samuel Coleridge in the 1830s called "the Clerisy," a group that extends beyond organized religion to the universities, media, cultural tastemakers and upper echelons of the bureaucracy. The role of the Second Estate is now being played by a rising Oligarchy, notably in tech but also Wall Street, that is consolidating control of most of the economy. ..."
A recent
OECD report , is under assault, and shrinking in most places while prospects for upward
mobility for the working class also declines.T
he anger of the Third Estate, both the growing property-less Serf class as well as the
beleaguered Yeomanry, has produced the growth of populist, parties both right and left in
Europe, and the election of Donald Trump in 2016. In the U.S., this includes not simply the
gradual, and sometimes jarring, transformation of the GOP into a vehicle for populist rage, but
also the rise on the Democratic side of politicians such as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren, each of whom have made class politics their signature issue.
Today's neo-feudalism recalls the social order that existed before the democratic
revolutions of the 17th and 18th Century, with our two ascendant estates filling the roles of
the former dominant classes.
The First Estate, once the province of the Catholic Church, has
morphed into what Samuel Coleridge in the 1830s called "the Clerisy," a group that extends
beyond organized religion to the universities, media, cultural tastemakers and upper echelons
of the bureaucracy. The role of the Second Estate is now being played by a rising Oligarchy,
notably in tech but also Wall Street, that is consolidating control of most of the economy.
Together these two classes have waxed while the Third Estate has declined. This essentially
reversed the
enormous gains made by the middle and even the working class over the past 50 years. The
top 1% in America captured just 4.9 percent of total U.S. income growth in 1945-1973, but since
then the country's richest classes has gobbled up an astonishing 58.7% of all new wealth in the
U.S., and 41.8 percent of total income growth during 2009-2015 alone.
In this period, the Oligarchy has benefited from the financialization of the economy and the
refusal of the political class in both parties to maintain competitive markets. As a result,
American industry has become increasingly concentrated. For example, the five largest banks now account
for close to 50 percent of all banking assets, up from barely 30 percent just 20 years ago.
(RELATED: The
Biggest Bank You've Never Heard Of)
Warren Buffett, Jeffrey Immelt, Charles Schwab and Jamie Dimon, at Georgetown University.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.
The concentration numbers in tech are even more frightening. Once a highly competitive
industry, it is now among the most concentrated
. Like the barbarian chieftains who seized land after the fall of Rome, a handful of companies
-- Facebook , Google
, Apple, Microsoft
and
Amazon -- have gained total control over a host of markets, from social media to search,
the software operating systems, cloud computing and e-commerce. In many key markets such as
search, these companies enjoy market shares reaching to eighty or ninety percent.
As they push into fields such as entertainment, space travel, finance and autonomous
vehicles, they have become, as technology analyst
Izabella Kaminska notes, the modern-day "free market" equivalents of the Soviet planners
who operated Gosplan, allocating billions for their own subjective priorities. Libertarians
might point out that these tech giants are still privately held firms but they actually
represent
, as one analyst put it, "a new form of monopoly power made possible by the 'network effect' of
those platforms through which everyone must pass to conduct the business of life."
The role of the Clerisy
The new feudalism, like the original, is not based simply around the force of arms, or in
this case what Marx called "the cash nexus." Like the church in Medieval times, the Clerisy
sees itself as anointed to direct human society, a modern version of what historian Marc Bloch
called the "oligarchy of priests and monks whose task it was to propitiate heaven." This
modern-day version of the old First Estate sets down the ideological tone in the schools, the
mass media, culture and the arts. There's also a Clerisy of sorts on the right, and what's left
of the center, but this remains largely, except for Fox, an insignificant remnant.
Like their predecessors, today's Clerisy embraces an orthodoxy, albeit secular, on a host of
issues from race and gender to the environment. Universities have become increasingly dogmatic
in their worldview.
One study of 51 top colleges found the proportion of liberals to conservatives as much as
70:1, and usually at least 8:1. At elite liberal arts schools like Wellesley, Swarthmore and
Williams, the proportion reaches 120:1.
The increasing concentration of media in ever
fewer centers -- London, New York, Washington, San Francisco -- and the decline of the
local press has accentuated the elite Clerisy's domination. With most reporters well on the
left, journalism, as a 2019 Rand report reveals, is
steadily moving from a fact-based model to one that is dominated by predictable opinion. This,
Rand suggests has led to what they called "truth decay."
The new geography of feudalism
The new feudalism increasingly defines geography not only in America but across much of the
world. The great bastion of both the Oligarchy and high reaches of the Clerisy lies in the
great cities, notably New York, London, Paris, Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, San Francisco, Los
Angeles and Seattle. These are all among the most expensive places to live in the world and
play a dominant role in the global media.
Yet these cities are not the progressive, egalitarian places evoked by great urbanists like
the late Jane Jacobs, but more closely resemble the "gated" cities of the Middle Ages, and
their equivalents in places as diverse as China and Japan. American cities now have higher
levels of inequality, notes one recent study , than Mexico.
In fact, the
largest gaps( between the bottom and top quintiles of median incomes are in the
heartland of progressive opinion, such as in the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, New York,
San Jose, and Los Angeles. (RELATED: Got Income
Inequality? Least Affordable Cities Are Also the Bluest)
In some of the most favored blue cities, such as Seattle ,
Portland and San Francisco , not
only is the middle class disappearing, but there has been something equivalent of "ethnic
cleansing" amidst rising high levels of inequality, homelessness and social disorder.
Long-standing minority communities like the Albina neighborhood in
Portland are disappearing as 10,000 of the 38,000 residents have been pushed out of the
historic African-American section. In San Francisco, the black population has dropped from 18%
in the 1970s to single digits and what remains, notes Harry Alford ,
National Black Chamber of Commerce president, "are predominantly living under the poverty level
and is being pushed out to extinction."
This exclusive and exclusionary urbanity contrasts with the historic role of cities. The
initial rise of the Third Estate was tied intimately to the " freedom of the city . " But with
the diminishing prospects for blue-collar industries, as well as high housing costs, many
minorities and immigrants are increasingly migrating away from
multi-culturally correct regions like
Chicago , New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco for less regulated, generally less "woke"
places like Phoenix, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, Atlanta and Las
Vegas.
Yet even as the middle-class populations flee, poverty remains deeply entrenched in our big
cities, with a rate roughly twice that of the suburbs. The much-celebrated urban renaissance
has been largely enjoyed by the upper echelons but not the working classes.
In the city of Philadelphia , for example, the "center city" income rose, but citywide
between 2000 and 2014, for every district that, like downtown, gained in income, two suffered
income declines. Similarly, research shows
that the number of high poverty (greater than 30 percent below the poverty line) neighborhoods
in the U.S. has tripled since 1970 from 1,100 to 3,100.
Undermining the Third Estate
The impact of the rising Clerisy and Oligarchs poses a direct threat to the future of the
Third Estate. On the economic side, relentless consolidation and financialization has
devastated Main Street. In the great boom of the 1980s, small firms and start-ups powered the
economy, but more recently the
rates of entrepreneurship have dropped as mega-mergers, chains and on-line giants slowly
reduced the scope of opportunities. Perhaps most disturbing of all has been the decline in new
formations among younger people.
This phenomenon is most evident in the tech world. Today is not a great time to start a tech
company unless you are in the charmed circle of elite firms with access to venture and private
equity funds. The old garage start-up culture of Silicon Valley is slowly dying, as large firms
gobble up or crush competitors. Indeed, since the rise of the tech economy in the 1990s, the
overall degree of industry
concentration has grown by 75 percent.
Like the peasant farmer or artisan in the feudal era, the entrepreneur not embraced by the
big venture firms lives largely at the sufferance of the tech overlords. As one online
publisher notes on his firm's status with Google:
If you're a Star Trek fan, you'll understand the analogy. It's a bit like being
assimilated by the Borg. You get cool new powers. But having been assimilated, if your
implants were ever removed, you'd certainly die. That basically captures our relationship to
Google.
The Clerisy's War on the Middle Class
For generations, the Clerisy has steadfastly opposed the growth of suburbia, driven in large
part by the aesthetic concerns –the conviction that single-family homes are fundamentally
anti-social– and, increasingly, by often dubious assertions on their environmental
toxicity. In places like California, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, government
policies discourage peripheral construction where home ownership rates tend to be higher, in
favor of dense, largely rental housing.
This marks a dramatic turnaround. During the middle of the 20th Century, ownership rates in
the United States leaped from 44 percent in 1940 to 63 percent in the late 1970s. Yet in the
new generation this prospect is fading. In the United States, home ownership among post-college
millennials (aged 25-34) has dropped from 45.4 percent in 2000 to 37.0 percent in 2016, a drop
of 18 percent from the 1970s, according to
Census Bureau data . In contrast, their parents and grandparents witnessed a dramatic rise
of homeownership from 44 percent in 1940 to 63 percent 30 years later.
But the Clerisy's war on middle- and working-class aspiration goes well beyond housing.
Climate change policies already enacted in California
and Germany
have driven millions into "energy poverty." If adopted, many of the latest proposals for such
things as the Green New Deal all but guarantee the
rapid reduction of millions of highly productive and often well-paying energy, aerospace,
automobile and logistics jobs.
Political implications
The war of the Estates is likely to shape our political landscape for decades to come. Parts
of the Third Estate –those working with their hands or operating small businesses–
increasingly flock to the GOP, according to a recent CityLab report. Trump also has a case to make with these workers, as real wages
for
blue-collar workers are now rising for the first time in decades. Unemployment is near
record lows not only for whites but also Latinos and African-Americans. Of course, if the
economy weakens, he may lose some of this support. (RELATED: Trump Blasts Media For
'Barely' Covering 'Great' Economy, Low Unemployment)
But the emergence of neo-feudalism also lays the foundation for a larger, more potent and
radicalized left. As opportunities for upward mobility shrink, a new generation, indoctrinated
in leftist ideology sometimes from grade school and ever more predictably in undergraduate and
graduate school, tilts heavily to the left, embracing what is essentially an updated socialist
program of massive redistribution, central direction of the economy and racial
redress.
Antifa members in Berkeley, California. AFP/Getty/Amy Osborne.
In France's most recent presidential election, the
former Trotskyite Jean-Luc Melenchon won the under-24 vote, beating the "youthful" Emmanuel
Macron by almost two to one. Similarly in the United Kingdom, the birthplace of modern
capitalism, the
Labour Party , under the neo-
Marxist Jeremy Corbyn , won over 60 percent of the vote among voters under 40, compared to
just 23 percent for the Conservatives. Similar trends can be seen across Europe, where the Red
and
Green Party enjoys wide youth support.
The shift to hard-left politics also extends to the United States– historically not a
fertile area for Marxist thinking. In
the 2016 primaries , the openly socialist
Bernie Sanders easily outpolled Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined. A 2016 poll by
the Communism Memorial
Foundation found that 44 percent of American millennials favored socialism while another 14
percent chose fascism or communism. By 2024,
these millennials will be by far
the country's biggest voting bloc .
In the current run-up to the Democratic nomination these young voters
overwhelming tilt toward Sanders and his slightly less radical colleague Warren, while former
Vice President Joe Biden retains the support of older Democrats. The common themes of the "new"
Left, with such things as guaranteed annual incomes, rent control, housing subsidies, and free
college might prove irresistible to a generation that has little hope of owning a home, could
remain childless, and might never earn enough money to invest in much of anything. (RELATED: Bernie Sanders Says 'Health Care For All' Will Require Tax Increases)
At the end, the war of the estates raises the prospect of rising autocracy, even under
formally democratic forms. In his assessment in "Democracy in America ," Alexis de
Tocqueville suggests a new form of tyranny -- in many ways more insidious than that of the
monarchical state -- that grants favors and entertainments to its citizens but expects little
in obligation. Rather than expect people to become adults, he warns, a democratic state can be
used to keep its members in "perpetual childhood" and "would degrade men rather than tormenting
them."
With the erosion of the middle class, and with it dreams of upward mobility, we already see
more extreme, less liberally minded class politics. A nation of clerics, billionaires and serfs
is not conducive to the democratic experiment; only by mobilizing the Third Estate can we hope
that our republican institutions will survive intact even in the near future.
Mr. Kotkin is the Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and the
executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His next book, "The Coming Of
Neo-Feudalism," will be out this spring.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not
reflect the official position of the Daily Caller.
As for the gory details of CIA involvement in the Chilean coup d'état of 1973,
Costa-Gavras' film "Missing" (Universal Pictures, 1982) staring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek
exposes the surreptitious U.S. involvement via CIA operatives, supportive of Pinochet's
cold-bloodied massacre of students and other innocent bystanders. Not surprisingly, the film
was removed from the U.S. market following a lawsuit against the director and Universal
Pictures by former ambassador Nathaniel Davis for defamation of character. When Davis lost his
lawsuit, the film was re-released by Universal in 2006.
The face of neoliberalism in Chile today is disheartened, reflecting deep losses for the
wealthy class as the people of the country reject Milton Friedman's neoliberal policies,
including clever tax evasion techniques by the business class. Could this be the start of a
worldwide movement against neoliberalism?
After all, Chile is the country that neoliberal advocates crowned their "newborn" in the
battle against big government, "get government off our backs," according to Milton Friedman
(and, Reagan picked up on the adage.) But, au contraire, according to the film "Missing,"
fascism took control over Chile. Is it possible that Friedman and Kissinger secretly cherished
a fascist empire, where control would be complete, disguised as "the land of individual
economic freedom?" Whatever their motives, that's what they got, and they never hesitated to
revere Chile's remarkable economic achievements, fascism and all, which is powerfully expressed
in the film "Missing," from end to end the heavy hand of fascism is ever-present.
Today is a new day as the people of Chile abandon decades of rotting neoliberal policies.
They've had enough of Milton Freidman. The people have decided that the "state" is a beneficial
partner for achievement of life's dreams. The "state" is not the menacing force of evil
preached by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
The people of Chile are embracing an anti-neoliberalistic nation/state for the first time in
over four decades. Will the world follow in their footsteps similar to the world adopting the
principles of the "Miracle of Chile" these past four decades?
As for the new way forward, it's all about student debt. Yes, student debt was the catalyst
behind Chile's repudiation of neoliberalism. In 2011 students in Chile made headlines by
launching nationwide strikes over high tuition costs that drove their families into debt (sound
familiar?) The strike lasted for eight months.
Over time, the student marches gained recognition by other like-minded organizations like
trade unions and protests of environmental degradation. According to Tasha Fairfield, an
assistant professor for the London School of Economics' Department of International
Development, the strikes were pivotal: "The student movement played a critical role in creating
political space," according to Fairfield, it "dramatically changed the political context in
Chile and helped to place the issues of Chile's extreme inequalities centrally on the national
agenda," Sebastian Rosemont, Chilean Activists Change the Rules of the Game, Foreign Policy In
Focus, Dec. 2, 2014.
Subsequently, the national election of 2013 swept the left wing into power with a huge wave
of public support, gaining strong majorities in both houses of the National Congress as well as
electing Michelle Bachelet president. The big leftward sweep came as over two thirds of the
population grew to support student demands for free university tuition.
Ever since the 2013 election, neoliberal policies have crumbled like a decrepit equestrian
statue of Pinochet, who carried the stigma of brutal criminality to, and beyond, the grave.
In stark contrast to 40 years ago, today, when students, armed with only stones clashed with
police equipped with full regalia of riot gear, tear gas, and armored vehicles, the harsh
police activity drew heavy international criticism. That, combined with more than two-thirds of
the population in support of the student movement, led to a new politics, Nueva Mayoria (New
Majority), a center-left coalition made up of Bachelet's Socialist Party, the Christian
Democratic Party, and the Party for Democracy.
Whereupon, Nueva Mayoria, turning up its nose to neoliberalism, raised corporate taxes from
20 percent to 25 percent and closed tax loopholes for companies and wealthy business owners.
Those changes added $8.3 billion annually to government coffers, thus, serving as a source of
funds to provide free education to all Chileans by 2020, as well as improved health care, and
including a roll back of the for-profit schools that emerged under Pinochet's dictatorship,
which is another neoliberal fascination, witness the U.S. for-profit schools listed on the New
York Stock Exchange honestly, what's with that? In order to achieve success, the new Chilean
politics astutely employed a key tactical move by applying the corporate tax hikes to only the
largest corporations. As a result, nearly 95% of businesses are not be affected by higher
taxation. This, in fact, served to secure a broad base of support for the new politics by
having those who can afford to pay Pay.
Along those same lines, the new government removed a tax dodge employed by large business
owners that allowed them to mostly escape taxes on $270 billion of profits (similar to the U.S.
15% "carried interest" for private equity entities, e.g., Mitt Romney's 15% tax rate).
Thus, it's little wonder that public backlash is challenging neoliberalism, especially
considering the conditions throughout the Pinochet regime, as described in the meticulously
structured documentary film, "The Pinochet Case," (Icarus Films, 2002), which opens with scenes
of ordinary Chileans scouring the desert for the remains of family members who were tortured
and killed decades previous.
Chile, "The Babe of Neoliberalism," came to life as an experiment for the "Chicago School"
of economic thought. It worked. Today neoliberal theory rules the world, laissez-faire
capitalism as practiced from China to the United States, privatization, open markets, slash
government, and deregulation, in short, "whatever works best for profits works best for
society." But, does it?
Forty years of neoliberal thought and practice has changed the world's socio-economic
landscape, but it only really, truly works for the same class of people today as it did 800
years ago for the nobility of the Middle Ages.
Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at [email protected] .
The irony of the Bush administration demanding unquestioning obedience following 9/11, in
the name of defending American freedom and democracy, is not lost on my students. Many openly
recognize the danger of the proto-fascistic value system that demands unqualified, blind
support for political leaders and their war agenda, without any consideration of the dangers
involved in an infinite war conducted in country after country, with little concern for the
humanitarian consequences.
One benefit of the intellectual curiosity of young Americans today is it translates into a
willingness to seriously consider the motives of the 9/11 attackers. This curiosity barely
existed in the days and years after September 11. Sure, Americans purchased books about the
Middle East and Islam in rising numbers post-9/11. But I can't remember a single person that I
spoke to in my years of studying U.S. foreign policy who bothered to actually read an interview
with Osama Bin Laden. Had they done so, they would have discovered that his and his comrades'
ideology, while fanatical and extreme, was also driven by serious grievances against the United
States that are shared by majorities in Muslim countries. These include: anger at U.S. military
support for Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestine; bitterness over U.S. military bases
throughout the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia; opposition to U.S. support for
authoritarian regimes in the region; and disgust with the U.S. in the wake of the 1991 Iraq war
and subsequent sanctions, which caused the deaths of an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children.
War fatigue became a staple of American politics in the late 2000s and 2010s, as most
Americans came to see the Iraq war as immoral and not worthy of the cost in finances, lives,
and blood, and considering the lies for war regarding Iraq's alleged weapons of mass
destruction and fictitious ties to Al Qaeda terrorism. Many young Americans seem to share this
war fatigue today, even if they weren't closely following American politics during the
2000s.
Having been exposed to the words of Osama Bin Laden, my students also understand just how
dangerous the onset of the "War on Terror" was, in a conflict which Bin Laden coldly and
diabolically sought to draw the U.S. into destructive wars in the Middle East, in order to
achieve a "balance of terror" on both sides, defined by vicious acts of destruction against
civilian populations by both the U.S. military and Islamic fundamentalists.
"... Biden thinks international agents, possibly Russian, who objected to his board membership with a Ukrainian gas company set up a fake account to discredit him. ..."
Last night we heard the best 'excuse' yet if you are caught with an Ashley Madison account, from
Dan Loeb - "due diligence." Today, not to be outdone by a married hedge
fund manager, Vice-President Joe Biden's son "Hunter" has unleashed his own set of excuses for member
ship of the extramarital affairs website,
as Breitbart reports - Biden thinks international agents, possibly Russian,
who objected to his board membership with a Ukrainian gas company set up a fake account to discredit
him. However, IP mapping suggests otherwise...
Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden's account on the extramarital dating website
Ashley Madison was used and likely created on the Georgetown University campus while Biden was
teaching there.
Business executive Robert "Hunter" Biden, reportedly an adviser to his father's political career,
told Breitbart News Monday that he suspected his enemies of creating a fake Ashley Madison account
for him in order to discredit him. The email address provided for "Robert Biden's" account
matched a personal email address once used by Biden, the vice president's son confirmed.
Biden thinks international agents, possibly Russian, who objected to his board membership
with a Ukrainian gas company set up a fake account to discredit him. A source close to
Biden
told People Magazine after the first Breitbart story ran that the IP address for the account
traces to Jacksonville, Florida.
But account information shows that the profile, which was confirmed by a credit card purchase
in 2014, was used at the latitude/longitude point of 38.912682, -77.071704.
That
latitude-longitude point just happens to exist on the Georgetown University campus, at an
administrative building on Reservoir Road. And Hunter Biden just happened to be teaching there
around the time the account was set up.
* * * Faced with the new information, representatives for Biden said that the vice president's
son would not comment on the story beyond his original statements to Breitbart News denying
that the account was his.
hedgeless_horseman
Biden's son discharged from Navy after testing positive for cocaine
He could be head of the ethics committee for the House of Lords.
At least his character flaws are in no way reflective of his father.
You know, apples never fall too far from the trees, stuff.
Hunter says: Hey, quit pickin' on me. Everybody has to try to get a head
somehow!
jcaz
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't wait until they find Joe's profile....
Manthong
"The truth about the conflict with Russia"
Aw c'mon..
Chevron, Shell, Monsanto, Cargill and others all had deals worth hundreds of
billions with Ukraine prior to the Nuland putsch.
When Yanukovych swung toward Russia's Trade Union instead of the EU, Nuland
used the $5 billion of NGO and western sympathizers she bought over the years, spent a little
more and engineered the violent coup and subsequent civil warfare.
The US sought to marginalize Russia and kick them out of Sevastopol but
surprise, surprise the locals would have none of that. Neither would Russia and the next thing
you know Crimea voted to be absorbed once again by Russia and Nuland is left with crap on her
face. Since the Donbass would have none of that either, 6,000 people are now dead and the
Ukraine is a basket case that the west will have to pay for.
There may be some ethnic animosities in play too, but the real motivations are
geo-political and economical.
ThanksChump
The most-credible bits of information I've found support your summary.
It's sad.
I doubt the West will pay for the cleanup in Ukraine without some form of ROI. That expense
will fall on their non-Russian neighbors who will be directly affected by starving neighbors
this winter, with Poland carrying the bulk.
I doubt the ethnic problems will play a significant role, aside from pro-Russia Ukrainians
feeling less charitable than otherwise.
ThanksChump
The most-credible bits of information I've found support your summary.
It's sad.
I doubt the West will pay for the cleanup in Ukraine without some form of ROI. That expense
will fall on their non-Russian neighbors who will be directly affected by starving neighbors
this winter, with Poland carrying the bulk.
I doubt the ethnic problems will play a significant role, aside from pro-Russia Ukrainians
feeling less charitable than otherwise.
JustObserving
Demented mass-murderer Putin is also a hacker and a blackmailer?
Since the beginning of the week, the three most influential mass circulation newsmagazines of
the United States, Britain, and Germany-Time, The Economist, and Der Spiegel-have published
cover stories that combine wild accusations against Vladimir Putin with demands for a showdown
with Russia.
The most striking and obvious characteristic of these cover stories is that they are virtually
identical. The CIA has scripted them all. The stories employ the same insults and the same
fabrications. They denounce Putin's "web of lies." The Russian president is portrayed as a
"depraved" mass murderer.
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
points.
Notable quotes:
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
ideological prop.
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
Globalization and
Economic Crisis
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
surplus. 3
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
labor. 4
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
9
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
home market.
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
until now.
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Imperialist
Interventions
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
anti-imperialist).
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
support.
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
neoliberalism.
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
segments.
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
it.
Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
One of the first authors to recognize this fact and its significance was Paul Baran in
The Political Economy of
Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957).
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
2013).
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
Meet American Empire's 'Doctor Death'
Stephen Kinzer's new book shows how Greatest Generation spooks justified their horrific experiments on
unwitting Americans.
By
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
•
September 10, 2019
In the 1962 film
adaptation of Richard Condon's
The Manchurian Candidate,
a diabolical North Korean doctor named Yen Lo tells Staff Sergeant Raymond Shaw to "pass the time with a little
solitaire." These trigger words, accompanied by a Queen of Diamonds playing card, prompts the lanky soldier to get up,
and when instructed, brutally kill two of his own comrades sitting on the stage, both of whom appear under the same
trance as Raymond.
Later, we find out this was not a dream but a real test of Shaw's programming through
elaborate mind control, undertaken before he is sent home to the United States as a sleeper agent for a Communist Party
cell, led by his own mother. "His brain has not only been washed, as they say, but cleaned," declares a gleeful Dr. Lo.
"The Manchurian Candidate" (1962, Universal Artists)
The film
was released when the country was in a state of high Cold War anxiety. The idea that the Communists were deep into
finding a way to brainwash and program individuals to deploy as weapons of war was not new, of course. It was just
finding its way into the increasingly paranoid popular culture. But what Americans did not know was that our own
government was in part responsible for those stories as a cover for their own brainwashing experiments, which were
racing along at the speed of a freight train.
Advertisement
In 1953,
Allen Dulles
told a group of fellow Princeton alumni that the U.S. was far behind the Russians and North Koreans in "brain warfare."
He warned of a mind control gap that would likely grow because "we in the West..have no human guinea pigs to try these
extraordinary techniques."
This was a lie of breathtaking proportions. For several years, his CIA had already
been conducting extreme experiments on unwitting "human guinea pigs" at black sites in France, Germany, and South Korea.
Shortly after he broadcast this cynical lament to the Princeton lads, he approved MK-ULTRA, the most illicit and morally
corrupt intelligence program in American history (that we know of). In it, the CIA tested a stomach roiling variety of
unregulated drugs, electro-shock, sensory deprivation, and other extreme techniques on unwitting souls across the United
States -- in "safe houses," prisons, psychiatric hospitals, doctors' offices -- even in the CIA itself. People died, went
crazy, or withered away in a vegetative state, often with little or no clue of what had happened to them.
In
Poisoner in Chief,
released today, journalist and author Stephen Kinzer makes Dr. Sidney Gottlieb the manifestation of the U.S.
government's Cold War obsession with winning, its warped moral compass, and its utter disregard for the law. From 1951
to the late 1960s, under Dulles' protection, Gottlieb was the principal player in what can only be called a maniacal
mission to find the perfect drug to destroy/control/reprogram the human mind (he believed, though he was never able to
prove, that the drug was LSD).
Gottlieb was also the chief scientist in a CIA program that developed poisons with
which to assassinate world leaders (failed attempts included Cuba's Fidel Castro and Congolese Prime Minister Patrice
Lumumba), tested aerosol-delivered germs and deadly gases, and honed extreme torture techniques. He's been called Dr.
Death, Washington's "official poisoner," and a mad scientist. But "Sidney Gottlieb" never became a household name,
mostly because he never paid for his crimes. Thanks to Deep State politics, statutes of limitations, a great lawyer, and
depressingly weak congressional investigators, Gottlieb was able to take the worst of his secrets to the grave in 1999.
Now, pulling together a trove of existing research, newly unearthed documents, and
fresh interviews, Kinzer puts the fetid corpus of American Empire back under a microscope. It isn't pretty -- but it is
instructive.
"Commitment to a cause provides the ultimate justification for immoral acts.
Patriotism is the most seductive of those causes," Kinzer surmises in an attempt to give context to Gottlieb and Dulles,
and Gottlieb's closest patron and conspirator,
Richard Helms,
who served as CIA chief after
Dulles and during the later years of MK-ULTRA.
"Some do things they know are wrong for what they consider good reasons," Kinzer
continued. "No one else of Gottlieb's generation, however, had the government-given power to do so many things that were
so profoundly and horrifically wrong. No other American -- at least, none that we know of -- ever wielded such terrifying
life-or-death power while remaining so completely invisible."
With so much material to work with,
Poisoner
in Chief
is a parade of outrages. But by the time the twisted calliope falls
silent, two major themes are left to contemplate.
First, Gottlieb did not emerge in a vacuum but in the primordial ooze of moral
justification following World War II. While America was putting its public virtue on display during the
Nuremberg trials
, the army under the Joint Intelligence
Objectives Agency was courting Nazi scientists who had been involved in the most grotesque human experimentation
imaginable during the war. Their expertise in biological warfare and psychoactive drugs was highly prized. The Americans
had to make sure, after all, that the commies didn't get to them first.
So under
Operation
Paperclip
, the army "bleached" their records and brought these men in among several hundred other scientists,
engineers, and technicians who served the Third Reich. Instead of prison, they were settled into comfortable obscurity
in suburban Washington, working for the U.S. government.
For those whose crimes were not so easily scrubbed, the army found ways to collaborate
with them overseas in even less controlled environs. Like
Kurt Blome
, a Nazi scientist who deliberately
infected prisoners with deadly viruses, including the plague, at the Auschwitz concentration camp and other sites. After
saving him from the gallows at Nuremburg, officials quietly installed him in the European Command Intelligence Center at
Oberursel, West Germany -- otherwise known as "Camp King" -- to conduct more experiments, but on our side.
The same went for Japanese scientist
Shiro Ishi,
who was
reportedly responsible for some 10,000 deaths in and around his
Manchurian complex called
Unit 731 during the war. His ghastly activities included everything from slow-roasting test subjects with electricity,
to amputating limbs and dissecting people alive to monitor their slow deaths. At one point, he lined up naked Chinese
women and children to see how long they would live after being struck by shrapnel in the buttocks. He also created tons
of anthrax that was later used to kill thousands of Chinese civilians.
But instead of bringing this monster to justice, U.S. agents granted Ishi and his
Japanese collaborators immunity and obtained all of his research on how toxins affect the body -- including all of the
tissue slides from people whose organs were taken out while they were still alive. "Scientists at Camp Detrick
(Maryland) were delighted," Kinzer writes.
"Thus did the man responsible for directing the dissection of thousands of living prisoners escape punishment," he
adds, noting that Ishi and his minions were deployed to U.S. detention centers in East Asia, where they "helped
Americans conceive and carry out experiments on human subjects that could not legally be conducted in the United States.
Secondly, Kinzer highlights how easily American government officials adopted their
former wartime foes' detached, ruthless approach to human experimentation, embarking without guidance or oversight on
what appears to be a fanatical quest without consequences. At a time when many Americans were zooming to suburbia in
search of "Leave it to Beaver," Gottlieb was hiring people like George White, straight out of
"The Sweet Smell of Success."
White was "a hard charging narcotics detective who lived large in the twilight world
of crime and drugs" writes Kinzer. In 1953 he started setting up "safe houses" in New York and San Francisco where he
would use pay hoodlums and prostitutes in drugs and dough to dose unsuspecting subjects with increasing amounts of LSD
at "parties" while the CIA peeped the action from two-way mirrors outfitted with cameras.
Meanwhile, Gottlieb gave tons of cash and LSD to doctors like Harris Isbell at the
Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky. "Officially this center was a hospital, but it functioned more like a
prison," writes Kizner. "Most inmates were African American from the margins of society. They were unlikely to complain
if abused."
And abused they were, like most of the test subjects at the prison programs financed
by the CIA. If they were told they were part of a test (agreement was typically in exchange for something, like good
behavior credits or high grade heroin), they weren't told what kind of drugs they were given or how much. Many of the
experiments involved dosing subjects with greater and greater amounts of LSD over long periods of time. Gottlieb wanted
to see at what point the mind would dissolve. "He was pleased to have secured a supply of 'expendables' across the
United States," Kinzer notes.
Certainly his test subjects at the CIA interrogation cites overseas were "expendable."
Kinzer offers a number of cases in which foreign detainees, usually suspected spies, were given massive amounts of
different drugs "to see if their minds could be altered." Others were given electro shock. They were later killed, "and
their bodies burned."
Then there were the seemingly random tragedies. Like art student Stanley Glickman who
was believed to be drugged directly by Gottlieb while at a Paris cafe in 1952, and then taken into a hospital where more
"testing" occurred. It was the end of "his productive life," writes Kinzer. Glickman died alone and mentally ill in New
York city several decades later. Or Frank Olson, a CIA scientist who "fell or jumped" from a Manhattan hotel window
after being unwittingly dosed at a "retreat" hosted by Gottlieb a week earlier. Though his family tried, they were never
able to pin his strange death on Gottlieb or the government.
"A Clockwork Orange" (Warner Bros./1971)
Kinzer shows that sometimes paranoia comes from a very real place -- that Big Brother was
not only watching, but for nearly 20 years he was drugging and testing germs and other toxins on unsuspecting Americans
like they were laboratory animals. And Gottlieb, Dulles, and Helms were no fictional spawn of an over-active
imagination. They were highly respected and powerful men with a combined 105 years of government service. They
were
the
system.
So how do we digest this today? We can start by acknowledging that the ends will
always justify the means because the government always gets away with it. And we are still living with the effects. The
torture techniques set into motion in the 1950's, for example, later surfaced in the dark corners of the
Phoenix Program
in Vietnam, and more recently in the dirty cells of
Abu Ghraib detention center.
Indeed, with a head full of Red Menace and lord knows what else, these so-called
stalwart men of the "Greatest Generation" pounded the earth as though America owned the world. Perhaps it did. American
Empire had many faces during the Cold War, and thanks to Kinzer, Sidney Gottlieb is one you shouldn't forget.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is
e
xecutive
editor at
.
Follow her on Twitter
@Vlahos_at_TAC
"... Hitler's Final Solution missed the entire point of racism within the capitalist world-economy. The object of racism is not to exclude people, much less exterminate them, but to keep them within the system as Untermenschen, to be exploited economically and used as political scapegoats . What happened with Nazism was what the French would call a dérapage – a blunder, a skid, a loss of control. Or perhaps it was the genie getting out of the bottle. ..."
"... Second, and just as important, there was a need to restore a sanitised racism to its original function: that of keeping people within the system, but as Untermenschen. If Jews could no longer be treated thus ..."
"... So began the era of what the Germans gingerly called the Gastarbeiter. ..."
"... Who were these Gastarbeiter? Mediterranean peoples in non-Mediterranean Europe, Latin Americans and Asians in North America, West Indians in North America and Western Europe, Black Africans and South Asians in Europe. And, since 1989, citizens of the former socialist bloc. They have come in large numbers because they wanted to come and because they could find jobs: indeed, were desperately needed to make the pan-European countries flourish. But they came, almost universally, as persons at the bottom of the heap – economically, socially and politically ..."
Since 1989, social science has thrown very little light on [such matters as the growth of
extreme right in Austria]. Indeed, its failure has been lamentable. All anyone –
whatever their politics – talks about is globalisation, as though that were anything
more than current rhetoric for the continuing struggle within the capitalist world-economy
over the degree to which transborder flows should be unimpeded It is dust in our eyes.
So, too, is the endless litany about ethnic violence, and here human rights activists, as
well as social scientists, are to blame. Ethnic violence, however horrifying, is not the
preserve of some less fortunate, less wise, less civilised other. It follows from the deep
and growing inequalities within our world-system, and cannot be addressed by moral
exhortation, or by any meddling on the part of the pure and advanced in zones controlled by
the impure and backward. World social science has offered us no useful tools to analyse what
has been happening in the world-system since 1989, and therefore no useful tools to
understand contemporary Austrian reality.
The reason everyone was so appalled by Nazism after 1945 is obvious. While almost
everyone in the pan-European world had been openly and happily racist and anti-semitic before
1945, hardly anyone had intended it to lead where it did. Hitler's Final Solution missed the
entire point of racism within the capitalist world-economy. The object of racism is not to
exclude people, much less exterminate them, but to keep them within the system as Untermenschen, to be exploited economically and used as political scapegoats . What
happened with Nazism was what the French would call a dérapage – a
blunder, a skid, a loss of control. Or perhaps it was the genie getting out of the
bottle.
It was acceptable to be racist up to the point of a final solution, but no
further . It had always been a delicate game, and no doubt there had been
dérapages before – but never on such a large scale, never in so central
an arena of the world-system, and never that visible. Collectively, the pan-European world
came to terms with what had happened by banning public racism, primarily public
anti-semitism. It became a taboo language .
One of the reasons the EU reacted so strongly to Haider is that Austria has refused to
assume its share of guilt, insisting that it was primarily a victim. Perhaps a majority of
Austrians had not wanted the Anschluss, although it is hard to believe it when you see
newsreel clips of the cheering Viennese crowds. But, more to the point, no non-Jewish,
non-Roma Austrian was considered anything other than German after the Anschluss, and the
majority gloried in that fact.
The realisation that racism had been undone by going much too far had two major
consequences in the post-1945 pan-European world. First, these countries sought to emphasise
their internal virtues as integrative nations untroubled by racist oppression, 'free
countries' facing an 'evil empire' whose racism, in its turn, became a regular theme of
Western propaganda. All sorts of socio-political actions followed from this: the 1954
decision by the US Supreme Court to outlaw racial segregation; the philo-Israel policies of
the whole pan-European world; even the new emphasis on ecumenicism within Western
Christianity (as well as the invention of the idea of a joint Judaeo-Christian heritage).
Second, and just as important, there was a need to restore a sanitised racism to its
original function: that of keeping people within the system, but as Untermenschen. If Jews
could no longer be treated thus, or Catholics in Protestant countries, it was necessary to
look further afield. In the pan-European world the post-1945 period was, at least at first, a
time of incredible economic expansion accompanied by a radically reduced rate of
reproduction. More workers were needed and fewer were being produced than ever before. So
began the era of what the Germans gingerly called the Gastarbeiter.
Who were these Gastarbeiter? Mediterranean peoples in non-Mediterranean Europe, Latin
Americans and Asians in North America, West Indians in North America and Western Europe,
Black Africans and South Asians in Europe. And, since 1989, citizens of the former socialist
bloc. They have come in large numbers because they wanted to come and because they could find
jobs: indeed, were desperately needed to make the pan-European countries flourish. But they
came, almost universally, as persons at the bottom of the heap – economically, socially
and politically
The rhymes with immigration policy debates in this country are obvious. And I love the irony
of dérapage .
"... For Stalinist and "wokers," there is no uncertainty or fallibility. If they believe someone is guilty, he must be. Why do we need a cumbersome process for determining guilt? The identities of the accuser and accused are enough. Privileged white men are guilty perpetrators. Intersectional minorities are innocent victims. Who needs to know more? Any process, regardless of its fairness, favors the privileged over the unprivileged. ..."
"... We must always remember that it is not only the road to hell that is paved with good intentions. It is also the road to tyranny. ..."
People on the "woke" hard-left seem so self-righteous about their monopoly over Truth
(with a capital T) that many of them apparently see no reason to allow dissenting,
politically incorrect, views to be expressed. Such incorrect views, they claim, make them
feel "unsafe." They can feel safe only if views they share are allowed to be
expressed. Feeling unsafe is the new trigger word for demanding censorship.
The other dangerous similarity between the Stalinists and the "wokers" is that both
disdain due process for those they deem guilty of political incorrectness or other crimes
and sins. They reject any presumption of innocence or requirement that the accuser bear the
burden of proof.
For Stalinist and "wokers," there is no uncertainty or fallibility. If they believe
someone is guilty, he must be. Why do we need a cumbersome process for determining guilt?
The identities of the accuser and accused are enough. Privileged white men are guilty
perpetrators. Intersectional minorities are innocent victims. Who needs to know more? Any
process, regardless of its fairness, favors the privileged over the unprivileged.
That is why I make the controversial claim that today, the "woke" hard-left is more
dangerous to civil liberties than the right. To be sure there are hard right extremists who
would use -- and have used -- violence to silence those with whom they disagree. They are
indeed dangerous. But they have far less influence on our future leaders than their
counterparts on the hard-left. They are not teaching our college age children and
grandchildren. They are marginalized academically, politically and in the media. The
opposite is true of hard-left Stalinists. Many have no idea who Stalin even was, but they
are emulating his disdain for free speech and due process in the interests of achieving the
unrealizable utopia they both sought. They also have in common the attitude that noble ends
justify ignoble means.
We must always remember that it is not only the road to hell that is paved with good
intentions. It is also the road to tyranny.
"... As Hudson points out, WW1 was a coup for the USA's financial sector and allowed them to gain control of academia to erase Marx and his Classical Economist allies and replace them with their own toadies along with their newly formed product--Propaganda and the nascent Police State, which the institution of Prohibition greatly facilitated. ..."
The latest by Crooke I found a curious read since he bases his article on his interpretation
of Adam Tooze's books about the world wars, neither of which I've read. Curious because we
know from Hudson that the counterrevolution by the Feudal Lords of banking and land holding
against Classical Economists and their political allies began in earnest well before then in
@1870 and that their Race for Africa was a big part of their efforts to regain their hold on
their home governments.
Within the USA, a similar revolution was being waged although it began several decades
later in response to the Populists.
As Hudson points out, WW1 was a coup for the USA's financial sector and allowed them
to gain control of academia to erase Marx and his Classical Economist allies and replace them
with their own toadies along with their newly formed product--Propaganda and the nascent
Police State, which the institution of Prohibition greatly facilitated.
I wrote the above to provide barflies with a contrasting historical context much of which
was recently reviewed via all the Marxian discussion and where the actual roots of
Neoliberalism are seated.
Deep at the core is the battle by Banksters and their allies to keep their institutions
private versus the Classical and Populist goal of making them public utilities and how the
World Wars helped the former to gain their goals.
Tooze's narrative seems okay on the surface, and it clearly fooled Crooke, but it's
incomplete. What did the European Powers run out first that generated WW1's stalemate? Money
for arms as posited or human bodies to man those arms? In George Seldes's censored interview
with Hindenburg a week after the Armistice, published in You Can't Print That! ,
the defeated Field Marshal admitted it was the entry of American Men--human numbers--that
turned the tide and made it clear to him that the war couldn't be won. Sure, money helped get
the doughboys over there, but before they arrived masses of money were sent in both
directions that didn't change the balance other than to create the unpayable postwar debts
the Americans demanded be paid.
karlofi@103
Hindenburg realised that the manpower resources of the US were crucial, though they hardly
came into play on the battle field. But it was US raw materials, combined with the British
blockade, that were the crucxial factor.
With the US the Alliance was simply, even minus Russia, too big, too powerful. And then
there was the military reality that the Allies were beginning to organise themselves on the
battlefield: including tanks etc.
As for the "Feudal Lords of Banking..." Hudson is a great resource, but his theory sounds
wrong to me.
When I first happened across Seldes's interview and knowing the "stabbed in the back"
claim that Hitler used in his rise to power, I was very curious as to why it was
censored--what possible reason could be claimed to withhold such an important set of
revelations? Clearly as Seldes himself says, if it had been published at the time, the entire
course of subsequent history would likely have taken a different direction. Are you familiar
with Seldes? He was I.F. Stone's idol and model with a penchant for truth-telling regardless
of the subject or people involved. The book I linked to is filled with similar stories that
contradicted the current narrative being sold to the masses, and his subsequent works are
similar. But as you might guess, few people have ever heard of him or his writings.
Given what Hudson reveals about the manipulation of the learning/teaching of
political-economy, it would be very wise to suspect much of what was/is produced via the
"social sciences," (history written by the victors) which is why my collegiate mentor
stressed the learning methodology he devised to try and arrive at the best non-subjective
conclusion as possible whatever the inquiry--to try and duplicate as closely as possible the
scientific method for confirmation of theories. I've discovered quite a lot of metaphysics
within the entire spectrum of social science disciplines that's made me question a vast
catalog of assumptions. As Fischer and other historians have discovered, historical truth
often lies literally in the margins--the annotations--made by decision makers or obscure
signals reports filed away within deep archives or forensic chemical reports detailing what
is or isn't present within the samples. The learning of the revealed truths can be painful,
making the adage Ignorance is Bliss rather powerful and enticing. But that's not for me as I
subscribe to the alternative adage, The Truth will set you Free.
I'm just reading Keen's 2nd Edition of his Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor
Dethroned? where he writes on page 29: "[...], conventional Marxsim is as replete with
logical errors as is neoclassical economics, even though Marx himself provides a far better
foundation for economic analysis than did Walras or Marshall."
To my knowledge, Keen refers to himself as a Post-keynesian economist (not to be confused
with bastardized Keynesian or central banks' Neo-Keynesian economics), highly influenced by
the work of Hyman Minsky who learned under Schumpeter.
Joshua Bolten, the president and chief executive of the Business Roundtable, an organization
representing the leaders of the largest American companies, said on Sunday that many C.E.O.s
were already "poised right on top of the brake."
There are two groups in American capitalist class: one anti-Russia and one anti-China.
The anti-Russia one is the "moderate" group, that still believes China can turn capitalist
with due time; they go with Wolfowitz Doctrine, which states Russia, as the successor state of
the USSR and heir of its nuclear arsenal, still represents American's strategic enemy.
The anti-China one is the "far-right" group, which believe China is indeed socialist and
will become more socialist with time (and, therefore, will transform the world around it
socialist). Thy use Huntington's "clash of civilization" doctrine as a screensaver to sell an
anti-China rhetoric to the far-right indentured masses, but deep down know the true fight
continues to be capitalism vs socialism.
Gramsci once stated that success begins with the correct analysis of the conjuncture. If
that is true, then we already know who's gonna win: the anti-China group.
But the Gordian Knot is this: the very existence of two doctrines in the core of the
American elite is already evidence the USA is no longer the world's sole superpower. If it was,
then there would be no dilemma between the anti-Russia and the anti-China: there would simply
be a unified, anti-Eurasia doctrine.
The very fact the American elite now must to compartmentalize its foreign policy is already
a symptom of something that resembles a multipolar order: the USA is still the most powerful
nation in the world, but now it is the first among equals (as opposed to being the king of
nations, the "global cop").
Meanwhile, the post-war alliance continues to crumble. Mark Carney has revived Keynes
"Bancor"; this is a last, desperate attempt of the First World minus the USA to preserve their
dignity. The IMF already has a currency basket, but the problem is that it cannot force any
country to take its loans: nations are still sovereign, and can only be interfered by the IMF
if they ask for its interference. What Carney is asking for is literally an institution with
absolute governance over all nations, genuine executive powers. Will the American elite -- who
has the most formidable Military to date -- accept to relinquish their own power? Spoiler
alert: no.
China and Russia have time and peace on their side. All they need to do is wait and continue
to do what they are already doing, while Western Civilization continues to degenerate. The
problem with this tactic is that the Western elites are not stupid, and will go on the
offensive someday.
Russia has another problem: who's gonna succeed Putin after he retires? After the fall of
the Romanovs, the Bolsheviks crushed the liberal army ("White Army") and the Anarchist-Nazi
army ("Black Army") and were forced to found a new nation under a single party system (since
all the other parties decided to form the White Army and fight a civil war, it had to do so
because it was literally the only party left alive in Russia).
The intense and chaotic situation of the newly born Soviet Union and the premature death of
Lenin resulted in a system with no clear path of succession. Stalin kind of created something
that resembled a POTUS by reforming the office of General Secretary of the CPSU. But this was
never official in the entire history of the USSR and each death of the de facto commander in
chief was succeeded by a bloody palatial struggle. The system finally crumbled when Gorbachev
-- the first and last General Secretary to be born after 1917 -- destroyed the CPSU and, with
it, the entire USSR.
After the "democratization" (i.e. liberalization) of Russia (now "Russian Federation"), a
bad carbon copy of the federal republic was created in a hurry in the vain hope imitating the
capitalist system would make Russia as well organized and prosperous as the First World
countries. But many mannerisms of the old system remains: there is no obsession in Russia with
minority governments, much of the party divisions are artificial (mock liberalism) and, in
practice, the important stuff is still decided between oligarchs, what is left of the State
machine and the Military.
But now there is a high level of American infiltration in Russia. If, after Putin's death,
the liberals make a move to take the government and do a Yeltsin 2.0, it will be up to the
Military (hopefully) to make a decision. Depending on how this trade war between China and the
USA will be at that point, things could pend to one side or the other. My high-risk bet here is
that, 10-20 years from now, there will be a chance Russia may speculate with going back to
socialism but "with Chinese characteristics" (if China is "winning" the trade war).
TheThinker
I've been reading a collection of essays by a Australian guy called Careys – on Democracy and propaganda, fully named, Taking the
Risk out of Democracy. He died unpublished but his papers were collated in a book after. Here some bits from my read that were
interesting.
In Jan 1994 David Hume reflecting on the consequences of the recent state terrorist projects that Washington had
organised and directed in its Central American domains, with the Church a prime target. They took special note of 'what weight'
the culture of terror has had in domestically the expectations of the majority vis-a-vis alternatives different for the powerful;
the destruction of hope, they recognised, is one of the greatest achievements of the free world doctrine of 'low intensity
conflict' what is called 'terror' when conducted by official enemies. Noam Chomsky 1994
Propaganda is the management of collective attitudes by the manipulation of significant symbolism collective attitudes are
amenable to many modes of alteration . intimidation intimidation .economic coercion drill
But their arrangement and rearrangement occurs principally under the importers of significant symbolism and the technique of
using significant symbols for this purpose is propaganda. Lasswell, Bardson & Janowitz 1953
Successful use of propaganda as a means of social control requires a number of conditions: The will to use it, the skills to
produce the propaganda, the means to disseminate it; and the use of significant symbols with real power over emotional reactions
– ideally symbols of the sacred and satanic (Light vs DARK)
A society or culture which is disposed to view the world in Manichean terms will be more vulnerable to control by
propaganda. Conversely, a society where propaganda is extensively employed as a means of control, will tend to retain a Manichean
world view, a view dominated by symbols and visions of the sacred and satanic.
Manichean – an adherent of the dualistic systems (dual = 2) religious systems of Manes, a combination of Gnostic,
Buddiasm, Zoroastrianism and various other elements with a doctrine of a conflict between the Light and Dark, matter being
regarded as dark and light / good vs evil – love vs hate
The 'public mind' was recognised long ago by corporate leaders to be 'the only serious danger confronting' their enterprise &
major hazards facing industrialists along with the newly realised political power of the masses, which had to be beaten back.
Big Business in the US stated started the Americanise Movement ostensibly to Americanise worker, who was being perceived as
being under threat from subversive forces of the Industrial Workers of the world.
what started as a method of controlling the political opinion of immigrant workers quickly turned into a massive program for
the thinking of an entire population. One of the most startling examples of the escalation of the whole population in processes
of propaganda was how Americanisation Program ( a word which conjures up the 'thought police') came to be transformed into a
National Celebration Day for the 4th July, to many of us (Carey's words not mine) it comes as a shock to discover that American
Independence Day had it's beginning in a Business led program to control public opinion rather than as a direct expression of a
Nation celebrating its historical birth.
"... When Trump was first elected, I tried to calm down friends with advanced TDS, who expected Kristallnacht to be directed at their favorite brunch spots, by saying that "This is what empires in decline look like." ..."
"... In this sordid world, girls/women have absolutely no value ..."
"... Don't forget the young boys who get traded around like fudge recipes. Something quick on the Hollywood angle on bent dicks. It applies almost everywhere in America now: https://news.avclub.com/corey-feldman-made-a-documentary-about-sexual-abuse-he-1834310252 ..."
"... My reinterpretation of your comment would be; In this sordid world, people without power have absolutely no value. ..."
"... Epstein's World was tied in with Hollywood and Wall Street. Both are homoerotic paedophile havens. The world of the Vatican is tied in to Wall Street; it has it's own bank, the Instituto per le Opere de Religioni. ..."
"... As is true with the continued withholding of key documents in the JFK assassination, I believe that if the lousy reporting and official screwups in the Epstein case persist, it will be perfectly fine for the public to conclude and believe the absolute worst and act accordingly. ..."
"... Given the spotiness and inadequacy of reporting on the Epstein affair I wonder if an avenue for exploration might be that of a more direct involvement of media moguls and highly placed media staff in being serviced by Epstein i.e., the decision-makers regarding what gets covered and published are themselves subject to exposure, embarrassment, and other things that befall men caught in such matters. ..."
I can't add much to Yve's excellent post and the follow-up comments, except to say that the events of recent days and weeks
have made Pizzagate (as deranged as it was) into some kind of weird Jungian premonition which is to say, the s&#* is out of control.
When Trump was first elected, I tried to calm down friends with advanced TDS, who expected Kristallnacht to be directed
at their favorite brunch spots, by saying that "This is what empires in decline look like."
In regard to this sordid tale, I'm reminded of Robert Graves' (and the superb BBC TV version of) "I, Claudius."
My reinterpretation of your comment would be; In this sordid world, people without power have absolutely no value.
Otherwise, I'm with you all the way. Abuse is abuse. No other definition is logical.
Epstein's World was tied in with Hollywood and Wall Street. Both are homoerotic paedophile havens. The world of the Vatican
is tied in to Wall Street; it has it's own bank, the Instituto per le Opere de Religioni.
Who knows? Perhaps there will be some Prelates unearthed from the Lolita Express passenger log.
As is true with the continued withholding of key documents in the JFK assassination, I believe that if the lousy reporting
and official screwups in the Epstein case persist, it will be perfectly fine for the public to conclude and believe the absolute
worst and act accordingly.
Given the spotiness and inadequacy of reporting on the Epstein affair I wonder if an avenue for exploration might be that
of a more direct involvement of media moguls and highly placed media staff in being serviced by Epstein i.e., the decision-makers
regarding what gets covered and published are themselves subject to exposure, embarrassment, and other things that befall men
caught in such matters.
Who covers the press and roots out its secret malefactions? Rogue reporters? And who publishes them? Indeed!
To Michels organizations are the only means for the creation of a collective will and they
work under the Iron Law of Oligarchy. He explicitly points out the indispensability of
oligarchy from the organizations by saying that "It is organization which gives birth to the
domination of the elected over electors, of the mandatanes over the mandators, of the delegates
over delegators, who says organization, says oligarchy" (Michels 1966, p.365).
Oligarchical tendencies in organizations is not related to ideology or ends of the
organizations. Of course, it is evident that any organization which is set up for autocratic
aims , it is oligarchic by nature. To Michels, regardless of any ideological concerns, all
types of organizations have oligarchic tendencies. It was his major question in political
parties that "how can oligarchic tendencies be explained in socialist and democratic parties,
which they declared war against it?"( Michels 1966, pp. 50-51).
When he examines this question throughout in his book: Political Parties, he sees
organization itself particularly bureaucracy, nature of human being and the phenomenon of
leadership as major factors for oligarchical tendencies in organizations. According to Michels'
assessments, the crowd is always subject to suggestion and the masses have an apathy for
guidance of their need. In contrast the leaders have a natural greed of power ( Michels 1966,
pp. 64, 205). To Michels, leadership itself is not compatible with the most essential
postulates of democracy, but leadership is a necessary phenomenon in every form of society. He
says "At the outset, leaders arise spontaneously, their functions are ACCESSORY and GRATUITOUS.
Soon however, they become professional leaders, and in this second stage of development they
are stable and irremovable"(
Michels 1966, p. 364).
Leaders also have personal qualities that make them successful as a ruling class. These
qualities are , the force of will, knowledge, strength of conviction, self sufficiency,
goodness of heart and disinterestedness ( Michels 1966, p. 100 ). Furthermore there is a
reciprocal relationship between leadership functions and the organizational structure. Majority
of leaders abuse organizational opportunities for their personal aims by using their personal
qualities and by creating means, organizational process or principles like party
discipline.
As for as organization itself is considered as a source of oligarchy, Michels says that it
is generally because of "PSYCHOLOGY OF ORGANIZATION ITSELF, that is to say, upon the tactical
and technical necessities which result from the consolidation of every disciplined political
aggregate."( Michels 1966, p. 365). Further as a particular type of organization bureaucracy
and its features require an oligarchic structure.
At the societal level, although development in the democracy, oligarchy still exists. First
of all he says by looking at the state as an organization, which needs a bureaucracy that is
the source of enemy of individual freedom, the state represents a single gigantic oligarchy. An
attempt to destroy this gigantic* oligarchy in fact brings a number of smaller oligarchies in
society but does not eliminate it ( Michels 1966, p. 188,191,202). Secondly he agrees with Jean
Jack Rousseau on the idea that "it is always against the natural order of things that the
majority rule and the minority ruled." (Michels 1965, p. 106). Along with this idea
professional leadership is seen by Michels as an incompatible phenomenon with
democracy, because , although the leaders at once are not more than executive agents off
collective will, as soon as they gain the technical specialization, they emancipate themselves
form the masses and start to use their power against the majority. ( Michels 1966, p.70). In
addition to this, representative political system is not compatible with the ideal democracy,
because to Michels, "a mass which delegates its sovereignty, that is to say transfer its
sovereignty to the hands of the few individuals, abdicates its sovereign function ( Michels
1966, p. 73).
The third factor is related to level of socio-economic development of societies and
experience of democracy in history. To him in this time ideal democracy is impossible due to
socio-economic conditions, that further more he says that," The democracy has an inherent
preference for the authoritarian solution of the important questions" (Michels 1966, p. 51,
342).
As a logical result of his iron law of oligarchy, he admits there are elites in society but
not elite circulation in terms of replacing one another. He does not redefine the concept of
elite, he took Pareto's theory of circulation of elites and modified it. To Michels, there is a
battle between the old and new elites, leaders.
The end of this war is not an absolute replacement of the old elites by the new elites, but
a reunion of elites, a perennial amalgamation. Complete replacement of elites is rare in
history. The old elites attract, absorb and assimilate the new ones, and it is a continuous
process (Michels 1966, p. 182, 343; Michels 1949, p. 63). Because for Michels, first " old
aristocracy does not disappear, does not become proletarian or impoverished ( at least in
absolute sense ), does not make way for new group of rulers , but that always remains at the
head of nations, which it led over the course of centuries...[and second]...the old aristocracy
be it very old rejuvenated, does not exercise the rule alone but is forced to shave it with
some kind of new ruler" (Michels 1965, p. 75-76).
Aristocracy for Michels is not homogenous stratum, and consists of nobility and ruling
class. Nobility represents a small but strong part of aristocracy. In this sense it seems that
nobility represents real oligarchical power in the society. To Michels nobility holds itself at
the helm and does not even dream of disappearing from the stage of history. Though not
coinciding with aristocracy,
To Michels nobility holds itself at the helm and does not even dream of disappearing from
the stage of history. Though not coinciding with aristocracy, and not constituting more than a
part of it, nobility generally takes hold of it and makes itself its master. It pervades,
conquers, and molds, the high middle class according to its own moral and social essence" (
Michels 1949,p. 77, 80 ). In contrast to nobility aristocracy is heterogeneous and a place
where lower classes' members can easily rise and members of aristocracy can be subject to
downward social mobility. For his time, he describes elements of aristocracy (1) aristocrats by
birth (2) aristocracy of government clerks, (3) aristocracy of money (4) aristocracy of
knowledge . All this groups also represent ruling class (Michels 1965, p. 76 ).
Michels does not get in too much special analysis of the relationships between aristocracy,
ruling class and majority. I think he doesn't see that there are much differences in oligarchy
in organization and oligarchy in society at large.
To me these two must be separated because (1) for individuals society in a sense an
unavoidable place to be in contrast to organizations, particularly voluntary organization , (2)
while society represent a more natural entity, organizations are more artificial entities and
(3) organizations are set to realize certain targets in a certain period of time, in contrast
society's targets are relatively unstable, and subject to reconstruction by people. To think of
these questions, does not necessarily reject the existence of oligarchical tendencies in
societies. In fact as Michels pointed out democracy has a legacy to solve important questions
of society, by using oligarchic methods. Furthermore he also points out that at any social
organization there is an intermixture of oligarchic and democratic tendencies. He says that"...
In modem party life, aristocracy gladly present itself in democratic guise, while the substance
of democracy is permeated with aristocratic elements. On the one side we have aristocracy is a
democratic form, and on the other hand democracy with an aristocratic context" (Michels 1966,
p.50).
... ... ...
In terms of replacement of old elites by new ones, there is a distinction between Pareto and
Michels. Michels does not admit replacement of elites, but admits, amalgamation of new and old
elites. In fact historically we can see both of them happened. In short term amalgamation of
old and new elites, and in long terms replacement of old elites by new ones. This time period
depends on changes in society at large. For example, consider socialist revolutions and
aftermath of independent movement in developing countries where these two movements took place,
old elites were wiped out. This type of changes are rarely in history. In short term,
amalgamation of elites takes place and new elites gradually increases its proportion in the
elite strata and ruling class. For example as a result of
industrialization in burope, Hughes observes that at the beginning ...upper class oligarchy
shared power with the old aristocracy-but with each year that passed the balance seemed to
incline more heavily in favor of the former" (Hughes 1965, pp.149-150). It can be concluded
that new elites are bom as a result of socio- economic , political, and historical changes in
society, and then these new elites via upward mobility, and that in the end the new elites take
place the highest position in the society. In this process the adaptation ability of old elites
determine their fates.
On democracy, Pareto always separate ideal democracy and democracy applied, and prefers to
talk about the subjects of democracy rather than democracy itself. Michels is clearly in favor
of democracy, Mosca was previously against democracy but after the experience of Fascism in
Italy, he changed his mind.
How elitist theories affected democracy ? Two answers have given for this question. On the
negative side, it has been said that these anti-democratic theories helped European ruling
classes by restoring their self confidence and by increasing their consciousness about their
privileges; therefore, elite theories become a vehicle for ruling classes (Hughes 1965 (b), p.
149), On the positive side, it has said that elitist theories have helped to enhance democratic
theories, Michels himself believed that research on oligarchies necessary for development of
democracy by saying that "...a serene and frank examination of oligarchical dangers of
democracy will enable us to minimize these dangers,...(Michels 1966, p.370).
It can be said that elitist theories extended and increased awareness of masses and
scientist against governments and ruling classes. As a result, many researches have been
conducted on application of democracy in organizations.
Researches have shown that oligarchical tendencies are dominant in organizations and can not
be eliminated totally. Further more, attempts to reduce oligarchic contrgl in organizations
with very few exception have failed. In general, in voluntary organizations, the functional
requirements of democracy con not be met most of the time (Lipset, Trow, and Coleman 1956,
p.4,6,452).
Is democracy still compatible with elite theories? That has been the question that lead to
redefine, reconceptualize the democracy. Here we must pay attention that Pareto, Mosca, and
Michels worked J.J. Rousseau's definition of democracy: government by the people, but not
government for the people (Burnham 1943, pp.156-7).
New democratic theories like political pluralism, theory of the mass society are compatible
with elitist theories. Schumpeter was one of the earliest thinker that he redefined democracy
considering elitists 1 arguments. To him democracy defined as "...institutional
arrangement for arriving the power to decide by means of competitive struggle for the people's
vote" (Bottomore 1964, p.10).
In contrast to compatibility of elitist theories with democracy, it can not be compatible
with Marxism. Michels pointed out that M [t]he law of circulation of elites destroy
the thesis of the possibility of a society without social levels...[and]... destroy equally the
supposition of a ruling class that remains closed and inaccessible" (Michels 1965, p. 106). In
terms of preference of political systems he clearly says that "the defects inherent in
democracy are obvious. It is none the less true that as a form of social life we must choose
democracy as the least of evils" (Michels 1966, p.370).
VI- CONCLUSIONS
Elitist theorists not only introduced elites but also contributed on better understanding of
social and political life of societies. The key concept is "power" and who has the power she/he
is the leader of society. Heredity, wealth, intellect, organizations are the means to get
power.
"... The other aspect this control and coup was NACA being taken over by Nazi Intel/strategists/scientists/war planners through Paper Clip and other relations of the Dulles family were involved with this. Dulles had not one patriotic bone in his body but only cared about elitism, and power. Yes, he made patriotic statements but they were as thin as his skin. ..."
Because "The links between high government officials, CIA, FBI, and organized crime is
astonishing." we will never have an answer, just like John Kennedy, MLK, etc.
In the grand scheme of things, there is a compelling historical argument for the idea that
when the NSA/CIA was created, Dulles found an opportunity to consolidate control of
information and by logic, populations which was in reality, a velvet coup.
The other aspect this control and coup was NACA being taken over by Nazi
Intel/strategists/scientists/war planners through Paper Clip and other relations of the
Dulles family were involved with this. Dulles had not one patriotic bone in his body but only
cared about elitism, and power. Yes, he made patriotic statements but they were as thin as
his skin.
"... on the Lolita Express; was it really beyond him to order a hit? ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Are the Elites the arch villains from the comic books, probably not, but then again many of them operate corporations that cause suffering to economically deprived populations all over the world. ..."
"... Why is this surprising? Aristocrats have always behaved this way. ..."
"... The sexual abuse of children and kids in their early teens is a very democratic crime. While physical abuse and neglect are linked to lower-income parents, sexual abuse occurs in all strata of society. It is not confined to the elites or to money changers. Nor to Jews, if that is what you are implying. ..."
"... Unconcerned about negative consequences, these people have become increasingly brazen. They certainly know that the laws that apply to you and me do not apply to them. ..."
"... In the words of George Carlin, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it." I stopped reading after the first two para's on this, tone is exactly the same as the sneering disdain from the empire's various MSM propaganda arms aimed at those "not in the club." ..."
"... 1) Either our intelligence agencies knew what was going on with Epstein and did nothing to stop him. Or... ..."
"... 2) They had no clue .. ..."
"... Occam's Razor says Possibility No. 1 is more likely to be the truth. But what would such a truth tell us? ..."
"... "What I am saying is that Epstein's direct testimony – AND ONLY EPSTEIN'S DIRECT TESTIMONY – had the potential to create a Common Knowledge moment that could bring down – not just specific sociopathic oligarchs like Mob Boss Donald or Mob Boss Bill or Mob Boss Andrew if they were the specific targets of that testimony – but the entire Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy. ..."
"... One strongly suspects that Ghislaine Maxwell knows just as much as Epstein did. Her participation was just as important to the operation of this "trafficking" ring. She was the lead recruiter, handled logistics, "grooming" and also was Epstein's "in" to many of his VIP associates (who were really clients). If witness accounts are accurate, she was also a participant in a good number of these depraved, criminal acts. ..."
"... The fact she has not been charged is quite the tell about our system of "justice." ..."
"... This is a dangerous slope. People once bowed to the elites because there was a principle of enforcement called nobless oblige. Society felt that elites had to be held to a higher standard because they carried greater responsibilities and burdens for society and the welfare of the national good. ..."
"... Since the 1960s nobless oblige has been downgraded to sound bites and photo ops for publicity and marketing. The elites have all but abandoned their responsibilities to support religion, to support education (except to indocrinate), to support tradition and society and the national good. The elites have become inward looking, inbred and narcissistic with little to no outward focus except in a marxist totalitarian vein of thought which serves their interest, indulges their hungers, preserves their wealth and power. ..."
"... My point was that as popolo minuti transform into popolo grossi in terms of access to power, they tend to start to transform into them in terms of moral character as well. (Inequality of) power corrupts, and absolute (inequality of) power corrupts absolutely. Thus, it seems that the over-representation of psychopaths in positions of power is because the psychopathy is acquired (and plenty of studies show drastic declines in empathy with even a little priming for power), rather than because it is easier for psychopaths to rise to the top. The worst of the popolo grossi tend to be hereditary. ..."
"... I think we're a lot closer to 1789 France than we want to believe. Read some Chris Hedges to see how the socialists see the current situation. Here's an example. https://www.commondreams.or... ..."
"... "given that all available evidence points to gross negligence on the part of the jail." How is gross negligence different from deliberate negligence? ..."
In our tense populist moment, Jeffrey Epstein's crimes land like a grenade. •
August 15, 2019
Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in Cambridge, MA on 9/8/04. (Photo by Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images) Hands up, those of you who
made a Fort Marcy Park joke last Saturday. Anyone? Surely there were a few. Fort Marcy Park was the Washington, D.C. woodland where
White House attorney Vince Foster was found dead in 1993, and while his demise was repeatedly ruled a suicide, certain conservatives
spent years afterwards hallucinating that the Clintons had him killed. Now, a quarter century later, both right and left are back
in conspiracy mode. Mere hours after pedo-to-the-stars Jeffrey Epstein was reported to have killed himself, the hash tag #ClintonBodyCount
began circulating on Twitter, followed closely by #TrumpBodyCount. Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had been associates of Epstein's;
both, the thinking went, might have been desperate for him not to take the stand.
It is wrong, of course, to publicly speculate that Epstein was whacked, given that all available evidence points to gross negligence
on the part of the jail. But can you really blame people? Twenty-five years ago, if you'd said that a roll call of America's elites,
everyone from a former president to the most famous lawyer in the country, would be implicated in a sex trafficking ring masterminded
by an enigmatic Wall Street financier who was also a member
of the Trilateral Commission , you would have been laughed into the darkest corner of the local subway platform (next to the
guy holding the "Vatican Hides Pedophiles" sign, presumably). Today, you'd be reading AP copy. Validate an improbable conspiracy
theory, and you grant license to all the related improbable conspiracy theories: Bill Clinton flew dozens of times on the Lolita Express; was it really beyond him to order a hit?
And if we know one thing about the Epstein story, it's that everything about it is utterly improbable. Epstein stands credibly
accused of assembling a
veritable underage harem . One of his victims, Virginia Guiffre, has already
implicated Prince Andrew
, the third-born of Queen Elizabeth II, and a picture has since emerged showing the royal with his arm around the then-teenager's
waist. Guiffre says she was also
ordered
to have sex with , among others, a "foreign president," a "well-known prime minister," and a "large hotel chain owner." Such
an open secret was all this perversion that the current president of the United States
made cheeky reference to it back in 2002. So invincible
did Epstein think himself that he discussed underage sex openly, telling a New York Times reporter that laws against pedophilia
were a
"cultural aberration."
That Epstein looked to other cultures to rationalize his behavior is nothing new -- Oscar Wilde wrapped his similar predilections
in lofty talk about the Greek ideal. What is different is that rather than being hunted and exposed by the powerful, as Wilde was,
Epstein was protected by them for decades. Even after he was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute in 2008, he was sentenced
to only 18 months in prison, held in a
private
wing of the Palm Beach County stockade, and let out on generous "work release."
Study the Epstein case long enough and you end up at Alex Jones's favorite conclusion: they're all sons of bitches. Everyone who
was anyone seemed to be in on this, or at least acting at the behest of someone who was. The essence of the conspiratorial mindset
is that powerful shadowy forces are, first, capable of and engaged in the most dastardly skullduggery imaginable, and, second, in
cabal-like cooperation with each other across all levels of power. The Epstein case seems to affirm both planks. It makes our elites
seem like aliens, of a different culture, a different moral code, a different species -- how else could they have let slide what
none of us ever would? Mary Colum's remark to Ernest Hemingway, "The only difference between the rich and other people is that the
rich have more money," has rarely rang less true.
There's been for some time now a sense of drift between most Americans and their elites, driven by factors like income inequality,
geographic enclaving, and cultural differences. We are living in a populist moment, to be sure, an era when the usual purveyors of
class warfare sound more apt than they otherwise would. In such a fraught environment, the Epstein revelation lands like a grenade.
Not only are America's gentry hitching rides on the Acela while mumbling about deplorables -- so the feeling goes -- they're also
running cover for a Caligula who's preying on little Susie down the street. Suddenly the populist divide doesn't just run between
classes or races or regular toast versus avocado, but between ethical extremes, good and literal evil.
This is, of course, what most populists profess: the people as a group are wholesome, the elites as a group are venal, and the
former has to be vaulted over the latter in order for society to be made whole again. Yet Epstein's crimes are so wicked as to potentially
set this moral chasm ablaze like never before. That's why, though Trump may have associated with Epstein, he's unlikely to be damaged
by him: everything that's happened only confirms what he's been saying for years. In fact, you might view the Epstein fracas as a
dialectic between two of his former associates, Trump's throw-them-out populism versus Clinton's benevolent stewardship of society
by the smart set. And Trump won out.
Just as populisms aren't driven entirely by economic causes, so too are revolutions often about more than bread. Consider the
Russian Revolution, sparked at least in small part by the people's perception of Rasputin as a sexual deviant. Consider, too, the
French Revolution's rage against the profligate "Madame Déficit" Marie Antoinette. In such cases, the moral tends to get intertwined
with the economic; license is seen as enabling decadence while the people pray and starve. This can be a blind spot in traditional
conservative thinking. We rightly detest (most) revolutions and the tremors they cause, but we sometimes fail to notice that the
Jacobins have good reason to be angry and that the ruling classes they overthrow really are that loathsome.
America is nowhere near 1789 France, or armed revolution in general. But we are anxious, restive, hungry for justice. A republic
likes ours depends on the harmonious coexistence of its people and its elites, a matter that our Founders spent a good deal of time
worrying about. Now we have a hideous face f0r elite corruption, one that's enabled fever in the national mind and dehumanized those
around him. For those of us who prize stability and liberty in a polity, who think populism is always best in modest doses, the weeks
ahead may be reason for worry.
Because it seems there's only more to come. On Wednesday, another victim
came forward , alleging
that Epstein raped her when she was 14 after she turned down sex with him. That this carnal omega, this pathetic loser, this finger-sniffing
pervert from every teen comedy lurking outside the pretty girl's home longing for a piece of discarded lingerie was somehow elevated
into a Teflon-coated Wall Street sun god is beyond comprehension. My friend Michael Davis calls Epstein and company the
Hellfire Club , but
just how much will they torch on their way down?
When I started to see what was going on in this country, which was my journey, I was amazed to find out that there is sex trafficking
8 blocks from the White House and I learned of this in 2011. Lisa Ling did a great documentary on it. "Night time traffic greater
than the day time." Pimps attempting to recruit girls walking home from school. If you pay attention it is also a journey of
the food chain of Corporate America that supports this.
This is a Money Changer issue, that is about the closing of eyes from both parties. and please don't tell me this is not so.
I know better than that.
To be absolutely, clear there was speculation that Epstein was going to be assassinated weeks before it happened. For the most
part citizens aren't so much surprised, as disappointed that Justice is once again foiled.
Are the Elites the arch villains from the comic books, probably not, but then again many of them operate corporations that
cause suffering to economically deprived populations all over the world.
When the World's 26 richest people own as much as
poorest 50%, just how close do they seem to achieve a god like status when looking up from the bottom? Maybe that's one reason
that people are so angry when it seems that the most vulnerable among us, our children, are the victims of a limited number
of the Elites and their twisted and horrific appetites.
I personally doubt much will come of the Epstein affair it will most likely be just one more myth added to the tally of
injustice, and the people will have to bitterly swallow it whole. It will probably take many more cases like this being exposed
before the people actually have their fill, and decide to do something about it. In the meantime, prepare to see more of the
same by the laughing and mocking Elites
In this day and age, I doubt a reporter will touch this story, and if they did, the real story would never make it into
the Main Stream Media. And, most likely the reporter would be permanently black balled, and never work in Journalism again.
It's happened many times before, because it doesn't fit within the approved propaganda message.
Give the story a couple decades or more, and it may come out, but otherwise it will be handled as a whack-job Conspiracy
Theory.
The Fourth Estate is the only business that is protected by the Constitution, and yet it has been neutered, and those in
the Press, who were supposed to be the Watchdogs for the people, have become the Lapdogs of the Elites.
What passes as News today is formulaic programming, passed on from the Propagandist to the Media, both nationally
and locally.
Two Republican state senators and two New York City Policemen died violently within 72 hours ....
1. On June 4, former Arkansas Senator Linda Collins-Smith, 57, was found dead outside her home, her body unrecognizable
on discovery. Police are now investigating her death as a homicide. On June 5, the county prosecutor announced that the circuit
judge sealed the documents and statements obtained by police.
2. On June 5, Deputy Chief Steven Silks, 62, weeks away from retirement, was found in an unmarked police car with a gunshot
wound to the head. News reports reported indicate it seemed self-inflicted.
3. On June 5, former Oklahoma Sen. Jonathan Nichols, 53, was found shot dead in his home. Police have not announced whether
they are investigating a suicide or homicide..
4. On June 6, Detective Joseph Calabrese, 58, was found near his police car on a Brooklyn, NY beach, dead of a gunshot wound
in what one report called an apparent suicide.
RIP.
Many other Americans died violently this past week. Why link these four together?
The answer comes down to a dark suspicion and a few hard facts which suggest that one or more of these four deaths might
have had something to do with these individuals' work against pedophiles and human trafficking, or the official corruption
so often surrounding both.
The sexual abuse of children and kids in their early teens is a very democratic crime. While physical abuse and neglect are
linked to lower-income parents, sexual abuse occurs in all strata of society. It is not confined to the elites or to money
changers. Nor to Jews, if that is what you are implying.
Just about everyone in America has a family member who was sexually abused by someone who was usually not elite. Therefore,
I cannot get worked up about class issues because of Jeffrey Epstein.
What I can get worked up about are the way elites start wars for poor people to die in and the way poor people get cruel
sentences while the elite either walk or get the Epstein treatment--private wing, generous work release.
I agree. Young girls are trafficked in more circles than the elite. I don't understand the connection to any particular social
class. But better connected people do have better lawyers and can get away with more. Until like Mr. Epstein , they don't.
The true character of these people is starting to be revealed. This (lack of) character is not only displayed when these men
travel to Pedo Island, it's on display everywhere they go, in everything they do. Every organization they lead, or have anything
to do with, is likely rotten to the core.
Unconcerned about negative consequences, these people have become increasingly brazen. They certainly know that the laws
that apply to you and me do not apply to them.
If the system is so corrupt to have protected Epstein for decades, who else is being protected? Who else is getting away
with figurative rape in every department of government, or house of finance?
The sooner the public recognizes the "true face" of our elites and rulers the better. Left to their own devices,
these people - who think they have class but in reality are the worst kind of trash - can bring down a nation.
Literally no one I know thought this guy would make it to trial alive with the exception of me, as I still had some hope in
the system, and I was proven wrong. I've lost whatever remaining faith I had in the system.
In the words of George Carlin, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it." I stopped reading after the first two para's on this,
tone is exactly the same as the sneering disdain from the empire's various MSM propaganda arms aimed at those "not in the club."
1) Either our intelligence agencies knew what was going on with Epstein and did nothing to stop him. Or...
2) They had no clue ... which would mean our much vaunted intelligence community knew nothing about the travel habits of
the "ruling class" of the world, about Jeff Epstein's real activities, had received no tips, had no insiders, and were incapable
of "putting two and two together," etc. In short, Big Brother - with all its resources and intelligence and sources - with
capabilities that put the Gestapo or the KGB to shame - had no idea.
Occam's Razor says Possibility No. 1 is more likely to be the truth. But what would such a truth tell us?
The third possibility is that BigBrother was in on it and didn't object to sacrificing teenage girls to get compromising information
on people they wanted tp blackmail.
"What I am saying is that Epstein's direct testimony – AND ONLY EPSTEIN'S DIRECT TESTIMONY – had the potential to create a
Common Knowledge moment that could bring down – not just specific sociopathic oligarchs like Mob Boss Donald or Mob Boss Bill
or Mob Boss Andrew if they were the specific targets of that testimony – but the entire Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy.
Jeffrey Epstein was the Missionary to bring down the monsters behind the monster, to bring down the SYSTEM of monsters.
Jeffrey Epstein's books and records are not. The individual voices of Jeffrey Epstein's victims are not.
And that's what makes me angriest of all.
That while the individual victims of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes will maybe (maybe!) get some smattering of "justice" and recompense
from the show trial of a monster's estate, there will be no Justice served against the monsters behind the monster, that the
Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy that CREATED this Jeffrey Epstein and the next Jeffrey Epstein and the next and the next
will continue unabated. Untouched. Golden."
One strongly suspects that Ghislaine Maxwell knows just as much as Epstein did. Her participation was just as important to
the operation of this "trafficking" ring. She was the lead recruiter, handled logistics, "grooming" and also was Epstein's
"in" to many of his VIP associates (who were really clients). If witness accounts are accurate, she was also a participant
in a good number of these depraved, criminal acts.
The fact she has not been charged is quite the tell about our system of "justice."
Whether Epstein was killed or committed suicide I don't know. I would however like to know who these elites were who participated
in the rapes of these young girls. They are just as guilty as Epstein whether they knew the ages of these girls or not, it
was there responsibility to find out.
This is a dangerous slope. People once bowed to the elites because there was a principle of enforcement called nobless oblige.
Society felt that elites had to be held to a higher standard because they carried greater responsibilities and burdens for
society and the welfare of the national good.
Since the 1960s nobless oblige has been downgraded to sound bites and photo ops for publicity and marketing. The elites have
all but abandoned their responsibilities to support religion, to support education (except to indocrinate), to support tradition
and society and the national good. The elites have become inward looking, inbred and narcissistic with little to no outward
focus except in a marxist totalitarian vein of thought which serves their interest, indulges their hungers, preserves their
wealth and power.
What you are have been seeing since the 1960s is the veneer being pulled off the rich and powerful. I would say Nixon and
Princess Diana and Ted Kennedy did the most to pull down the veneer from the rich and powerful but it could be argued that
Nixon and Princess Diana and Ted Kennedy were accidental victims of circumstance. However Epstein's human trafficking of children
for sex and blackmail .... breaks the most because his crimes were no accident nor was he a victim of circumstance. Epstein
planned this and created an organization around it elevating his elitist crimes to a level no that I dont think anyone in modern
history can match.
I doubt that history's elites were ever any better. It's just that with far less transparency and access, it was much easier
for them to hide how awful they were. The 1960s was the start of mass media, and so the veneer started to crack.
I do think this COULD qualify as "the story of the century." That is, If the story was told in its entirety - all "names"
exposed.
If fully told, the swamp might, in fact, be "drained."
Now the people in said swamp have a strong incentive to protect their domain. Which is why so many of us are skeptical the
true story will ever be told.
If there was ever a time where brave and patriotic whistleblowers were needed ...
"This is, of course, what most populists profess: the people as a group are wholesome, the elites as a group are venal, and
the former has to be vaulted over the latter in order for society to be made whole again."
Sorry, but take a look at the average American. The so-called "people" are for the most part just as morally obtuse as the
"elites" but they carry the additional burden of being not only ignorant but also stupid. Just look around. Best recent example
of the utter stupidity of the American people: a recent survey shows they think 23% of the population is gay. Really.
But isn't the issue exactly that the "only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money" comment
is perfectly true?
The rich and powerful are us, but corrupted by riches and power. Many of them behave the way many of us would quickly start
to behave if we found ourselves in their shoes. If the gap in power between you and most other people is so huge that you can
do anything to them and get away with it, your morals stop applying to them because you start to view them as somewhat subhuman.
In this sense, I'm sure Epstein never even thought of raping the underage daughters of other elites.
Thus, the issue is stratospheric inequality of power (by whatever fungible measure you choose - money, political, religious,
social, etc). And we see it happen ALL the time throughout history and across geographies - as soon as the power gap is in
excess of social boundaries, as soon as there is a group of people you can do pretty much anything you want to and get away
with it, you start going a little crazy. Exploitation, rape, torture, murder, slavery - everything starts looking justified.
Then it's just a matter of degree, with tin-pot dictators on one end and Epstein somewhere in the middle.
Read Machiavelli. He observed that the popolo minuti (regular folks) just wished to be left alone by authorities whereas popolo
grossi (fat cats) were of a different psychological composition: they delighted in deception, were vain, greedy and hungry
for power.
Centuries later, studies of psychopaths reveal these creatures are different from regular humans at the brain level. The elites
are psychopathic (the key ones are) and no, they ain't like regular people. They are literally a different kind.
My point was that as popolo minuti transform into popolo grossi in terms of access to power, they tend to start to transform
into them in terms of moral character as well. (Inequality of) power corrupts, and absolute (inequality of) power corrupts
absolutely. Thus, it seems that the over-representation of psychopaths in positions of power is because the psychopathy is
acquired (and plenty of studies show drastic declines in empathy with even a little priming for power), rather than because
it is easier for psychopaths to rise to the top. The worst of the popolo grossi tend to be hereditary.
In my opinion, there is nothing so dangerous as to believe that evil people are a different breed from the rest of us. Instead,
they tend to simply be us, but in different circumstances. History tends to show that revolutions aimed at replacing the evil
people with better people end up with corrupted revolutionaries, rather than a fundamentally less abusive system.
"It reminds me of a well known speech by a defense counsel, who pleaded his client's poverty as an excuse of robbing and murdering
six of his victims, on the lines that "My client's poverty drove him to murder six people, everybody else would have done the
same!"
Outstanding article. However, I think we're a lot closer to 1789 France than we want to believe. Read some Chris Hedges to
see how the socialists see the current situation. Here's an example.
https://www.commondreams.or...
Elites, that is those with more wealth and/or power than the rest of the masses have always been this way. Remember how decadent
the European aristocracy was with their sport of "wenching"? that is going around in groups raping young peasant girls. Also,
there was the Hellfire Club which you can research if you want details. This scandal will get less and less coverage in the
MSM until it fades away like all the others involving the rich and powerful.
The Global "Elite" control our Ruling Class by means of blackmail. A person does not get raised to high truly influential positions
of power(Politicians, Judges, Hollywood, etc.) unless they have enough dirt on you to know that they can control you without
question. The most powerful form of blackmail that they have is ped0filia because it is THE most abhorrent crime that someone
can commit, so much so that even criminals in prison refuse to allow ped0 scumbags to be housed near them.
Trump has an obvious penchant for beautiful WOMEN not kids. He was helping and somewhat part of the "Elite" in that he was
joining in with them to buy politicians for influence but Trump neutralized that being over his head by openly admitting to
buying politicians. They thought it was safe to allow him to run because they thought it was a joke and he would never get
elected. They were wrong. In my opinion, they don't have enough dirt on him to get him to go along with their agenda of selling
out the USA to the highest bidder hence the all-out attacks on him.
The key to understanding the "Elite"/Ruling Class dynamic is not conflating the two and realizing that blackmail is the
main tool used by the one to keep the other under their control.
*Sorry about the Trump tangent above but it's absolutely ridiculous that people are trying to tie Trump to Epstein even
though Trump has been trying to bring national attention to the Epstein case FOR YEARS.
"given that all available evidence points to gross negligence on the part of the jail."
How is gross negligence different from deliberate negligence?
You can tell? And btw the WaPo just came out with news that broken
bones in Epstein's neck are more usual in cases of homicide.
I generally see anyone who belittles
'Conspiracy theorists' as part of an Establishment that uses 'incompetence' as the perennial excuse for everything that goes
wrong.
The old accusation, that you are a 'conspiracy theorist' (a term invented by the CIA after the Kennedy assassination) is holding
less and less weight. The irrational kooks now seem to be the people who think Epstein committed suicide. Jokes were everywhere
about how 'we were shocked to hear about the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein, next Tuesday' when a day later we hear, 'Jeffrey Epstein
committed suicide'.
By the way, this equivalence between Trump and Clinton is bogus, I believe. There isn't much evidence of any involvement
of Trump (some evidence to the contrary in fact), but there is a load of evidence suggesting 'Wild Bill' was availing himself.
Remember when Maxine Waters was labelled a kook for saying the CIA was bringing cocaine into her LA district? She was mocked
and ridiculed. Now we know she was right. You can't make this stuff up.
I'm sorry, but this case stinks to high heaven, and if you're ready to accept "gross negligence" as the explanation you're
likely to believe ANYTHING the authorities tell you. Epstein was either murdered, as the autopsy and reports of shrieking from
his cell indicate, or subbed out by intelligence services and replaced by a murdered homeless person who received plastic surgery.
Study the history of modern intelligence services: appearances are deceiving, and systemic disinformation is endemic to politics.
Careful public speculation, acknowledging where we're uncertain, is very much the responsible thing to do; otherwise there
is no hope of democratic accountability. The investigation we're being promised will be conducted by the exact same institution
-- the US Department of Justice -- that was responsible for keeping Epstein safe and securing his public testimony about his
criminal network. These are the people you want us to trust? Come on, a little critical reasoning, please!
The most ridiculous part is the idea that being rich and powerful gives you a predilection to turn a blind eye. My wife's family
turned a blind eye to a perverted uncle that molested multiple family members over decades. No one stood up, it would've been
a shame to them to admit it. How is this any different?
" (the) factional struggle evident in the rise of Trump "
Thank you.
One of the many purposes of Russiagate was to misdirect people away from the fact that
Trump's election represents (among other things) a huge split in the ruling class, which can
roughly be described as one between extractive industries (energy, agriculture, mining, etc.)
and finance, media and tech. A map of the 2016 election results strongly supports this
analysis. Thus, Comcast was more than happy to give free reign to Rachel Maddow's two+ years
of disinfotainment
This split in the ruling class would provide an immense opportunity if the US had a real
functioning Left, rather than lumpen bourgeois and childish virtue signalling about open
borders and reparations.
It attests inventiveness and vicious amorality of neoliberals, who now promote the idea that criticizing neoliberalism and removing
Democratic party in the USA and Labor Party in the UK from clutches of Clintonism//Brairism is inherently Anti-Semitic ;-)
Israel lobby wants to extent the anti-Semitism smear to any critique of Israel. which is of course standard dirty trick in witch
hunts like neo-McCarthyism.
Notable quotes:
"... This, of course, is compounded by the over-amplifying of anti-Semitism by the media and the alacrity with which it has been taken up by Corbyn opponents, including hypocrites who floated "rootless cosmopolitan" criticisms of Ed Miliband when it suited just a few years ago. ..."
"... The resolution of the anti-Semitism crisis then is not a matter of compromise -- for each side the issue will only go away with the complete crushing and driving out of the party of the other. ..."
"... A good analysis. But, it emphasizes the point I made in the previous post, which is that, the right are currently engaged in an all out push to remove Corbyn and crush the left with the same old bureaucratic means. Whatever else Williamson may or may not be guilty of, his point that the leadership have facilitated this situation by their continual appeasement of the right is absolutely valid. Its that he is being attacked for, not anti-Semitism. ..."
"... Coming on the day when the FT have a column seriously positing that criticizing capitalism is inherently anti-Semitic, it seems to me that dancing on the head of a pin ..."
"... As many of the comments on your blog on Williamson attest, the salient feature of this - well, call it witch-hunt for the sake of argument - is the double standards where we have to be whiter than white, whilst no account whatsoever is taken of the most egregious racism elsewhere. ..."
"... The other nonsense that has grown up is that it is only those that suffer any form of discrimination who can define what that discrimination is, i.e. only Jews can define anti-Semitism, only black people can define racism against them, only women can define discrimination against women. ..."
"... That then assumes that the members of each of these groups are themselves homogeneous, and agreed in such definitions. In reality, it means that dominant elements, i.e. those connected to the ruling class and ruling ideas get to make those determinations. ..."
"... If we look at anti-Semitism, for example, it is quite clear that there is no agreement amongst Jews on what constitutes anti-Semitism. The JVL, certainly have a different definition than the JLM. ..."
"... Secker wrote a piece in the Morning Star last year comparing claims of anti-Semitism within Labour to the story of the emperor's new clothes. ..."
"... Given that the actual data, even allowing for all of the spurious and mischievous accusations of anti-Semitism in the party, made by right-wing enemies of the the party, and particularly of Corbyn and his supporters, amounts to only 0.1% of the membership, and given that of these, 40% were straight away found to be accusations against people who were not even LP members, with a further 20%, being found to have absolutely no evidence to back them, its quite possible that individual members of the LP, have never seen any instance of it. ..."
"... Take out all those mischievous and malicious allegations made in order to whip up the hysteria, so as to to damage the party, by its enemies, and you arrive at a figure of only 400 potential cases, out of a membership of 600,000, which is 1 member in 1500. ..."
"... In fact, based upon the actual facts, as opposed to the fiction and factional hysteria that is being whipped up by right-wing opponents of Corbyn and the party, and by supporters of Zionism for their own narrow political reasons, the chances are about 14: that you will never see any even potential instance of anti-Semitism, even on the narrow definition that the party has now imposed upon itself, which comes pretty close if not entirely to identifying anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, or even just criticism of the current Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu. ..."
"... In the US, Jewish groups that have long been ardent defenders of Israel have more recently come out to criticize the regime of Netanyahu, and the actions of the Israeli state. The main defenders of Zionism, besides the actual Zionists themselves, appear to be people like the AWL, who for whatever reason hitched their wagon to Zionist ideology some time ago, ..."
"... Just because the only case of stabbing I have witnessed was more than 50 years ago, does not, and should not lead me to think that knife crime was worse 50 years ago than it is today. The actual data would seem to suggest that cases of anti-Semitism were greater in the LP in previous times than they are currently, contrary to what the media and those with factional motives would have us believe. ..."
"... The apparent level of anti-semitism in Labour is a modern phenomenon turbo-charged and amplified by social media. People have their views reinforced within their bunkers where anti-Israeli memes become anti-Zionist and then become anti-Semitic. It is much easier to send an anonymous email than a letter. ..."
"... I wouldn't trust Lansman on this issue, any more than on many others. Lansman abolished democracy, to the extent it existed to begin with, by turning it into his personal fiefdom, reminiscent of the activities of Hyndman and the SDF. His position on anti-Semitism, and fighting the witch-hunt, and of appeasing the Blair-right's as they attacked Corbyn, has been appalling throughout. ..."
"... Having abolished any democracy in Momentum, which he now runs as its CEO, he also appears to want Corbyn to do the same thing with the Labour Party, abolishing its internal democratic procedures, and putting himself personally in charge of those disciplinary measures ..."
"... Its notable that, yesterday, when the Welsh Labour Grass Roots organisation came out to call for Williamson's suspension to be reversed, Kinnock and other Blair-rights immediately called for an investigation into them, ..."
"... This truly is reaching into the realms of McCarthyism, where you are found guilty not just of witchcraft, but of consorting with witches, or even having an opinion as to whether an individual charged with witchcraft is guilty, or even the extent to which the number of witches amongst might be exaggerated. ..."
"... It's not a factually accurate description of global political realities, because Israel does not control the US, if that is what the image is intended to imply. But, the message, is thereby anti-Israeli state, not anti-Semitic. It could only be considered anti-Semitic, if in fact you are a Zionist and claim that Israel and Jews are are interchangeable terms, which they are not. ..."
"... If we replace Zionism with Toryism, and Jew with British, the situation becomes fairly clear. If the we show the British state as being controlled by Tories, who implement their ideology of Toryism, in what way would criticism of the British state, under the control of such Tories, or criticism of Tories be the equivalent of British people as a whole? ..."
"... The hope of a Two-State Solution disappeared long ago, and was never credible. It simply allows Zionists to proclaim they are in favour of it, whilst doing everything to make it practically impossible, such as extending West Bank Settlements. The solution must flow from a struggle for democratic rights for Israeli Arabs, and for a right for all Arabs in occupied territories to be extended the same rights as any other Israeli, including the right to vote, and send representatives to the Knesset. As I argued thirty years ago, the longer-term solution is a Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine, guaranteeing democratic rights to all, as part of building a wider Federal Republic of MENA. ..."
"... Jim Denham: imperialist lackey and sycophant turned Witch hunter in chief ..."
"... Let us be very clear about what this witch hunt is about, it is about purging from public life any credible and effective opposition to Israel in particular and more generally opposition to the imperialist barbarians of the imperialist core. It is about driving from universities, social media and intellectual life any form of opposition to the interests of the imperialists. ..."
"... A UN report has concluded that Israel deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of protesting civilians, including children and disabled people and it shot 20,000+ people (yes 20,000+!). The UN says this likely a war crime. Why are the noble defenders of the Palestinian cause in the dock and not notorious Palestinian haters like Jim Denham? ..."
"... These attacks on Corbyn and his supporters, repeated in all of the most aggressive imperialist countries, are simply a proxy attack on the Palestinian people themselves. ..."
"... Jim Denham's comment here illustrates the problem entirely. The picture he has linked to shows an alien symbiote having attached itself to the face of the statue of liberty. The statue of liberty here represents the US. The symbiote has on its back the Israeli Flag, and likewise, thereby represents the state of Israel. The picture therefore, represents the well-worn, and clearly factually wrong meme that Israel controls the US. ..."
"... But, as a Zionist organisation, the AWL and its members cannot distinguish between the state of Israel and Jews, so they cannot distinguish between criticism of the state of Israel, and criticism if Jews. For them, as for the Zionist ideology of the state of Israel, which is most clearly manifest in the ideology of its current political leadership, in the form of the Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu, with the recent introduction of blatantly racist laws that discriminate even more openly against not Jewish Israeli citizens, and with his willingness to try to keep his corrupt regime in office by going into coalition with an avowedly Neo-Nazi party that until recent times was considered beyond the pale, even by most Zionists, the term Zionism is synonymous with the term Jew. So, any criticism of Zionism, or of Israel is for them immediately equated with anti-Semitism. ..."
"... Once again Jim Denham reefuses to engage in rational debate, and again resorts instead to his assumption that Israel = Jews, as well as his crude attempts at a typical Stalinist amalgam, to conflate the views of his opponents with some hate figure. ..."
"... Again Jim Denham makes the conflation of Israel and Jews explicit when he says, "This image also plays on the tired and disgraceful antisemitic 'conspiracy theory' trope of undue Israeli (Jewish) influence on world affairs." ..."
"... The way that the right are using anti-Zionism as the equivalent for anti-Semitism, and the appeasement of that attack has led them to widen the scope of that attack. As Labour List reports , right-wing Labour MP Siobhan McDonagh, is now claiming that to be anti-capitalist is also to be "anti-Semitic". The idea was put forward also by former Blair-right spin doctor, John McTernan, who wrote an article in the FT to that same effect ..."
"... As the right-wing extend their witch-hunt against socialists in the LP to claim that Marxists are necessarily misogynist, as well as anti-Semitic – and the same logic presented by McDonagh, McTernon, and Phillips would presumably mean that the Left must also be xenophobic, homophobic, anti- Green, and many other charges they want to throw into the mix – it will be interesting to see whether and to what extent the AWL, join them in that assault, in the same way they have done in their promotion of Zionism. ..."
The problem, however, is because this is overlaid by factional struggle ...
This, of course, is compounded by the over-amplifying of anti-Semitism by the media and the alacrity with which it has been taken
up by Corbyn opponents, including hypocrites who floated "rootless cosmopolitan" criticisms of Ed Miliband when it suited just a
few years ago.
Here's the thing. Just because your opponents take up an issue, some times cynically and in bad faith. and use it to inflict as
much damage as they can does not mean the problem is fictitious.
Precisely because they can point to Facebook groups full of useful fools, and Twitter accounts with Corbyn-supporting hashtags
acting as if the Israel lobby and "Zionists" are the only active force in British politics, this is the stuff that makes the attacks
effective and trashes the standing of the party in the eyes of many Jews and the community's allies and friends.
The institutional anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is, therefore, somewhat different to the kind you find in other institutions.
It is sustained by the battle for the party, a grim battlefront in a zero sum game of entrenched position vs entrenched position.
As such, whatever the leadership do, whatever new processes the General Secretary introduces for one side it will never be enough
because, as far as many of them concerned, the leadership are politically illegitimate; and for the other it's a sop and capitulation.
The resolution of the anti-Semitism crisis then is not a matter of compromise -- for each side the issue will only go away
with the complete crushing and driving out of the party of the other. A situation that can only poison the well further, and
guarantee anti-Semitism won't honestly and comprehensively be confronted.
A good analysis. But, it emphasizes the point I made in the previous post, which is that, the right are currently engaged
in an all out push to remove Corbyn and crush the left with the same old bureaucratic means. Whatever else Williamson may or may
not be guilty of, his point that the leadership have facilitated this situation by their continual appeasement of the right is
absolutely valid. Its that he is being attacked for, not anti-Semitism.
It is first necessary to close ranks, and defeat the assault of the Right. As Marr said to Blair this morning, had Prescott
announced he was forming a separate group, and was establishing his own witch-hunting bureaucratic apparatus in the party, Blair
would have sacked him immediately - actually not so easy as the Deputy is elected. But the thrust is valid. Unless Corbyn deals
with Watson, the Right will roll over the Left, despite the huge disparity in numbers.
Again it comes down to whether Corbyn is up for that task, or whether we need a leadership of the left with a bit more backbone
to see it through.
I'm afraid this IS due to the "intersectionality" cult, whereby certain groups are always privileged and wrong, and some are always
oppressed and right. Jews are, according to this "analysis", the uber-privileged and uber-white.
We've heard several times that according to "intersectionality" that it's impossible to be racist against white people because
racism requires both prejudice and power, and white people are by definition powerful. Therefore, anti-Semitism is dismissed because
it can't be a thing because Jews are all-powerful and even more oppressive than other whites.
Those who don't subscribe to all of these beliefs are nevertheless tinged with them, which is why people who aren't staunch
antisemites will nevertheless fail to take anti-Semitism seriously.
Coming on the day when the FT have a column seriously positing that criticizing capitalism is inherently anti-Semitic, it
seems to me that dancing on the head of a pin about whether the 'careless' anti-Semitism you've described means the party
is institutionally anti-Semitic is rather missing the point. (OK, the column is by John McTernan, but the FT gave him column inches
to argue that case, and I guess they didn't mean it as the satire it most certainly is.)
As many of the comments on your
blog on Williamson attest, the salient feature of this - well, call it witch-hunt for the sake of argument - is the double standards
where we have to be whiter than white, whilst no account whatsoever is taken of the most egregious racism elsewhere. We live
in society: we can never, ever be that whiter than white - especially when it comes to Israel/Palestine, which is so full of contradictions
and traps for the unwary (e.g. the position of the Israeli state claiming to speak for all Jewry around the world, in the way
that the Board of Deputies position themselves as speaking for all British Jews - neither close to being true, but small wonder
that opponents of what they do and stand for take that universality at face value.)
The fight we need to take up is to compare and contrast just how pro-active the current party is against anti-Semitism in its
constitution and machinery with the glaring absence of such elsewhere, and to present a positive picture of what we are doing,
rather than mumbling apologetically into our beards. We need to take the fight to the rigged system at the same time as being
unstinting in rooting out the troubling stuff.
The other nonsense that has grown up is that it is only those that suffer any form of discrimination who can define what that
discrimination is, i.e. only Jews can define anti-Semitism, only black people can define racism against them, only women can define
discrimination against women.
That then assumes that the members of each of these groups are themselves homogeneous, and agreed in such definitions.
In reality, it means that dominant elements, i.e. those connected to the ruling class and ruling ideas get to make those determinations.
If we look at anti-Semitism, for example, it is quite clear that there is no agreement amongst Jews on what constitutes
anti-Semitism. The JVL, certainly have a different definition than the JLM.
But, just rationally, the concept that only those discriminated against get to define the discrimination is bonkers. Suppose
you come from Somalia or some other country that practices FGM, you could argue that it is part of your cultural heritage, and
that anyone seeking to prevent you from undertaking this barbaric practice was thereby racist, on your self-definition of what
that discrimination against you amounts to. Or Saudis might argue that it is racist to argue against their practice of lopping
off women's heads, or stoning them to death for adultery, including having been raped, etc.
The JVL come pretty close to arguing that there is *no* anti-Semitism in the Labour party (Jenny Manson, for instance, says she's
never witnessed any)and Glyn Secker wrote a piece in the Morning Star last year comparing claims of anti-Semitism within Labour
to the story of the emperor's new clothes.
Given that the actual data, even allowing for all of the spurious and mischievous accusations of anti-Semitism in the party,
made by right-wing enemies of the the party, and particularly of Corbyn and his supporters, amounts to only 0.1% of the membership,
and given that of these, 40% were straight away found to be accusations against people who were not even LP members, with a further
20%, being found to have absolutely no evidence to back them, its quite possible that individual members of the LP, have never
seen any instance of it.
Take out all those mischievous and malicious allegations made in order to whip up the hysteria, so as to to damage the
party, by its enemies, and you arrive at a figure of only 400 potential cases, out of a membership of 600,000, which is 1 member
in 1500. If the average branch size if 100 active members, it means on average there is one potential case of anti-Semitism
in every 15 branches. So, if you are a member in any of the other 14 branches, you would never see that one potential case of
anti-Semitism.
In fact, based upon the actual facts, as opposed to the fiction and factional hysteria that is being whipped up by right-wing
opponents of Corbyn and the party, and by supporters of Zionism for their own narrow political reasons, the chances are about
14: that you will never see any even potential instance of anti-Semitism, even on the narrow definition that the party has now
imposed upon itself, which comes pretty close if not entirely to identifying anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, or even just criticism
of the current Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu.
In the US, Jewish groups that have long been ardent defenders of Israel have more recently come out to criticize the regime
of Netanyahu, and the actions of the Israeli state. The main defenders of Zionism, besides the actual Zionists themselves, appear
to be people like the AWL, who for whatever reason hitched their wagon to Zionist ideology some time ago, probably in their
usual knee-jerk reaction of putting a plus sign wherever the SWP put a minus. Having done so, and as a result of the bureaucratic
centrist nature of the sect, they find themselves now having to follow through on the position they adopted on the basis of the
"practical politics" - opportunism - as it dictated itself to them at the time.
If, and probably more likely when, they change position, it will come as with all their previous changes of position with the
assertion that "nothing has changed", as when after claiming a few years ago that the LP was a stinking corpse - as they ridiculously
stood their own candidates in elections with the inevitable result - and the next minute proclaimed themselves as its most ardent
militants, as they sought to use their sharp elbows to gain positions on Momentum's leading bodies!
Incidentally, on the question of "observance", the only time I have seen someone get stabbed, is more than 50 years ago, when
I was at school. I've seen plenty of other violent stuff in the intervening period, for example, people getting glassed, people
having wrought iron tables smashed over their heads. My sister, who is several years older than me, and was out bopping during
the days of the Teddy Boys, saw more people getting slashed, in the 1950's, because the flick knife was the Ted's favoured weapon.
But, that doesn't mean that I disbelieve the media when it talks about the current spate of knife crimes. Its just that, however,
terrible such crimes are for those that suffer or witness them, and no matter how much the media that has to sensationalise every
story, for its own commercial purposes, talks about an epidemic or a knife crime crisis, the number of knife crimes per head of
population is extremely small.
The chances that 999 out of 1,000 of us will never be the victim of, or witness knife crime does not mean it doesn't exist.
But, those that then claim that the 999 out of 1,000 of us who say we have not seen it, must be somehow being dishonest, are not
dealing with the facts, and are simply fuelling a moral panic.
When some phenomena is statistically insignificant, which 1 in 1,500 cases, is, and when as with many such phenomena there
is no normal distribution of the occurrence of such cases - for example, knife crime will tend to be concentrated in particular
areas - trying to present any kind of rational analysis based upon personal observation is a mug's game.
Just because the only case of stabbing I have witnessed was more than 50 years ago, does not, and should not lead me to
think that knife crime was worse 50 years ago than it is today. The actual data would seem to suggest that cases of anti-Semitism
were greater in the LP in previous times than they are currently, contrary to what the media and those with factional motives
would have us believe. It is certainly thec ase that anti-Semitism is a bigger problem in the Tory party, and other right-wing
organisations than it is in the LP, again not that you would know that from the reporting of it, or from the attitude of certain
factional sects, such as the AWL.
Labour has 'much larger' group of antisemitic members which Corbyn has failed to deal with, Momentum founder warns
By Rob Merrick Deputy Political Editor The Independent, Monday 25 February 2019 16:10 |
Labour has "a much larger" group of antisemitic members than it recognises which Jeremy Corbyn has failed to "deal with", Momentum
founder Jon Lansman has warned.
The Labour leader's long-standing ally said "conspiracy theorists" had infiltrated the party – a consequence of its huge surge
in membership in recent years.
Mr Lansman stopped short of backing the call from Tom Watson, Labour's deputy leader, for Mr Corbyn to take personal charge
of the antisemitism complaints dogging Labour.
But he said: "I do think we have a major problem and it always seems to me that we underestimate the scale of it. I think it
is a widespread problem.
"I think it is now obvious that we have a much larger number of people with hardcore antisemitic opinions which, unfortunately,
is polluting the atmosphere in a lot of constituency parties and in particular online. We have to deal with these people."
The apparent level of anti-semitism in Labour is a modern phenomenon turbo-charged and amplified by social media. People
have their views reinforced within their bunkers where anti-Israeli memes become anti-Zionist and then become anti-Semitic. It
is much easier to send an anonymous email than a letter.
History is very much the tale of new technology transforming the potential of human behaviour and beliefs, and one of the oldest
beliefs ("the blood libel") is anti-Semitism.
This is how Labour has changed - ie, the rise of Corbyn has coincided with the ubiquity of this technology. In fact, arguably
the rise of Corbyn was aided by it.
Corbyn's nuanced position on Israel/Palestine gives permission to social media extremists.
The rest is history.
Incidentally, this is why you are less likely to confront anti-Semitism in real-life while the internet may be awash with it
- there are the real and virtual identities which only occasionally bleed into each other.
Which is true and which is not? We might wonder if technology has evolved ahead of human adaptation - the "real world" filters
that govern apparently "real" behaviour missing.
I'm sure even certain posters here are less bananas in "real life" than their online comments might suggest!
I wouldn't trust Lansman on this issue, any more than on many others. Lansman abolished democracy, to the extent it existed
to begin with, by turning it into his personal fiefdom, reminiscent of the activities of Hyndman and the SDF. His position on
anti-Semitism, and fighting the witch-hunt, and of appeasing the Blair-right's as they attacked Corbyn, has been appalling throughout.
Having abolished any democracy in Momentum, which he now runs as its CEO, he also appears to want Corbyn to do the same thing
with the Labour Party, abolishing its internal democratic procedures, and putting himself personally in charge of those disciplinary
measures. That truly would be the actions of a Bonapartist. That Tom Watson is prepared to do that, as he sets himself up in a
situation of dual power, to confront Corbyn is no surprise that anyone who even remotely considers themselves a part of the Left
should support should a move is a disgrace. Perhaps no surprise that the AWL supporters of Zionism, and the witch-hunt, appear
to be doing so, then.
Its notable that, yesterday, when the Welsh Labour Grass Roots organisation came out to call for Williamson's suspension to
be reversed, Kinnock and other Blair-rights immediately called for an investigation into them, and for its Secretary who sits
on Labour's NEC to also be suspended, for interfering in an ongoing investigation! So, why did those same Blair-rights not call
for the suspension of Watson, who immediately demanded Williamson's suspension, and withdrawal of the whip, before any investigation,
or indeed of Hodge and others who on a daily basis go to the media to sally forth about cases that are under investigation, or
waiting for investigation.
This truly is reaching into the realms of McCarthyism, where you are found guilty not just of witchcraft, but of consorting
with witches, or even having an opinion as to whether an individual charged with witchcraft is guilty, or even the extent to which
the number of witches amongst might be exaggerated.
Jim Denham's comment is a case in point. How much more "anti-Semitism" exists? What is the factual basis of the statement,
as opposed to click bait headline. Even if the actual extent is 100% more than the data so far presented, that would mean that
potentially 1 in 750 LP members might be guilty of some form of anti-Semitism. Its hardly an epidemic, or institutional anti-Semitism,
and far less than exists in the Tory Party, which is also infected by Islamaphobia, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia.
In fact, its probably much less than you would find in the BBC, Sky or other establishment institutions. Anti-Semitism exists,
and is a problem, but that does not mean it is not being used by Labour's enemies or the proponents of Zionism for their own political
ends. The real conspiracy theorists are those that try to present anti-Semitism as a conspiracy based upon infiltration of the
LP, the same people who presented the support for Corbyn from 300,000 new members as really just being a case of far left entryism,
by Trots.
This is a meme, taken from Incog Man, a far-right site. It was posted with positive endorsement by a Labour member, Kayla Bibby,
a delegate to conference in fact:
Bibby subsequently received only a formal warning, with Thomas Gardiner of Labour's Governance and Legal Unit (what used to
be the Compliance Unit), saying it was only anti-Israel, and not anti-Semitic.
Not only could a Labour member post something obviously anti-Semitic, it was not deemed to be so by the Compliance Unit. I
bet we all know people who would agree.
It's not a factually accurate description of global political realities, because Israel does not control the US, if that is
what the image is intended to imply. But, the message, is thereby anti-Israeli state, not anti-Semitic. It could only be considered
anti-Semitic, if in fact you are a Zionist and claim that Israel and Jews are are interchangeable terms, which they are not.
In fact, there are probably not an inconsiderable number of Jews, who think that the state of Israel does exercise undue influence
over US policy, and certainly it seems to be the case that, in the US, more liberal Jewish groups, seem to think that one reason
that the Bonapartist regime of Netanyahu, in Israel, was so supportive of Trump, and we see the same support for Trump amongst
Zionists in Britain, is at least in part due to the fact that Obama had been distancing the US from its historical uncritical
support for Israel.
If we replace Zionism with Toryism, and Jew with British, the situation becomes fairly clear. If the we show the British
state as being controlled by Tories, who implement their ideology of Toryism, in what way would criticism of the British state,
under the control of such Tories, or criticism of Tories be the equivalent of British people as a whole?
Clearly it wouldn't, because there are a majority of British people who oppose Toryism, and thereby oppose the actions of the
British state under the control of the Tories. A nationalist, or racist might want to equate the nation state with the whole of
its people, but the people who are doing that here, by interpreting criticism of the Israeli state with anti-Semitism, are the
Zionists themselves, and their apologists, because they seek thereby to delegitimize any criticism of the state of Israel and
Zionism by equating it with anti-Semitism.
That in effect makes the Zionists themselves, and their apologists anti-Semites, because in adopting this equation of Jewishness
with being Zionist, and with Israel, they make all Jews thereby responsible for the actions of Zionism and of the state of Israel!
The problem for the AWL, and its members like Jim Denham, on this issue comes down to this. Until thirty years ago, the organisation,
under its previous names, was an ardent defender of the ideas and traditions of Jim Cannon. Cannon's "The Struggle for a Proletarian
Party" was required reading for all of its members. Then, in an about face, the organisation overnight collapsed into what Trotsky
called "the petit-bourgeois Third Camp", and so became ardent defenders of the enemies of Cannon, the petit-bourgeois Third Camp
of Burnham- Shachtman. That kind of wild zig-zag is typical of bureaucratic-centrist organisations, which is what the AWL is.
As part of this collapse into the petit-bourgeois Third Camp, and the moralistic politics it is based upon, the AWL also adopted
the ideas of Third Campists like Al Glotzer, in relation to Israel and Zionism, as opposed to the position of Mandel, which represented
a continuation of the ideas of Cannon and Trotsky. I set this out in a short blog post 12 years ago
Glotzer and the Jews as Special
, after the AWL had repeatedly censored it appearing on their website in response to an article setting out Glotzer's position.
Having committed themselves to the reactionary Zionist ideology that essentially underpins Glotzer's stance - the same thing
idea of having lost faith in the working-class, and so having to rely on the bourgeois state, or "progressive imperialism" to
accomplish the tasks of the working-class, is behind the AWL's support for NATo's war against Serbia, Iraq, Libya etc., but is
also behind the politics of other Third Campists such as the SWP, that instead look to other larger forces, such as reactionary
"anti-imperialist" states to carry forward its moral agenda - the AWL are left now trying to defend their position of support
for the creation of a racist, expansionist state in Israel, as the inevitable consequences of that venture unfold.
For a Marxist, it is not at all difficult to say that the establishment of the state of Israel is one that we should not have
supported at the time, because it would lead to the kind of consequences we see today, and yet, to say, 75 years on from the creation
of that state, it is an established fact, and trying to unwind history, by calling for the destruction of that state would have
even more calamitous consequences for the global working-class. It is quite easy for a Marx to say that the current nature of
the Israeli state, as a racist Zionist state, based, like almost no other state in the world on a confessional basis, i.e. of
being a Jewish state, a state for Jews in preference to every other ethnic/religious group flows from the ideology, and nature
of its creation. But, then to argue that the answer to that is not a destruction of the state of Israel, which could only be done
on the bones of millions of Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, but is to wage a working-class based struggle against that
racist foundation upon which the state has been founded, and that struggle is one that must unite Jews and Arabs alike. In fact,
the position of palestinians today is a mirror image of that of the Jews 75 years ago.
The hope of a Two-State Solution disappeared long ago, and was never credible. It simply allows Zionists to proclaim they are
in favour of it, whilst doing everything to make it practically impossible, such as extending West Bank Settlements. The solution
must flow from a struggle for democratic rights for Israeli Arabs, and for a right for all Arabs in occupied territories to be
extended the same rights as any other Israeli, including the right to vote, and send representatives to the Knesset. As I argued
thirty years ago, the longer-term solution is a Federal Republic of Israel and Palestine, guaranteeing democratic rights to all,
as part of building a wider Federal Republic of MENA.
Jim Denham: imperialist lackey and sycophant turned Witch hunter in chief
Let us be very clear about what this witch hunt is about, it is about purging from public life any credible and effective
opposition to Israel in particular and more generally opposition to the imperialist barbarians of the imperialist core. It is
about driving from universities, social media and intellectual life any form of opposition to the interests of the imperialists.
This is nothing but authoritarianism in action, censorship of political opponents and the closing down of any credible definition
of free speech.
In other words this is something any leftist worth half an atom would be fighting against with all their energies.
But what do we find, pathetic pro war pro imperialists leftists and post modern liberals joining the witch hunt.
Meanwhile in the real world:
A UN report has concluded that Israel deliberately targeted and killed hundreds of protesting civilians, including children
and disabled people and it shot 20,000+ people (yes 20,000+!). The UN says this likely a war crime. Why are the noble defenders
of the Palestinian cause in the dock and not notorious Palestinian haters like Jim Denham?
How can anyone on the left get away with supporting and providing ideological cover for Israel How can any leftist allow a
socialist movement to be sabotaged by the Israel state and its army of appalling immoral apologists?
These attacks on Corbyn and his supporters, repeated in all of the most aggressive imperialist countries, are simply a
proxy attack on the Palestinian people themselves.
Jim Denham's comment here illustrates the problem entirely. The picture he has linked to shows an alien symbiote having attached
itself to the face of the statue of liberty. The statue of liberty here represents the US. The symbiote has on its back the Israeli
Flag, and likewise, thereby represents the state of Israel. The picture therefore, represents the well-worn, and clearly factually
wrong meme that Israel controls the US.
But, as a Zionist organisation, the AWL and its members cannot distinguish between the state of Israel and Jews, so they
cannot distinguish between criticism of the state of Israel, and criticism if Jews. For them, as for the Zionist ideology of the
state of Israel, which is most clearly manifest in the ideology of its current political leadership, in the form of the Bonapartist
regime of Netanyahu, with the recent introduction of blatantly racist laws that discriminate even more openly against not Jewish
Israeli citizens, and with his willingness to try to keep his corrupt regime in office by going into coalition with an avowedly
Neo-Nazi party that until recent times was considered beyond the pale, even by most Zionists, the term Zionism is synonymous with
the term Jew. So, any criticism of Zionism, or of Israel is for them immediately equated with anti-Semitism.
It is what leads such Zionists to then also insist on their right to determine who is a Jew or not. The AWL do that with all
those Jews, such as the JVL, who refuse to accept the AWL's definition of anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism. Its like the old saw that
the definition of a Scot is someone who wears a kilt, and when asked about Jock McTavish, from Arbroath, who does not wear a kilt,
the reply comes back, then he cannot really be a Scot!
The Zionists insists on defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, and thereby closing down debate. Jim Denham does that most
clearly here, in his refusal to debate the actual substantive points. It is typical of the attitude of the AWL, in general which
long since gave up trying to defend its bourgeois liberal, opportunist politics by rational debate, and instead turned to bureaucratic
censorship, and ill-tempered invective.
Once again Jim Denham reefuses to engage in rational debate, and again resorts instead to his assumption that Israel = Jews,
as well as his crude attempts at a typical Stalinist amalgam, to conflate the views of his opponents with some hate figure.
Again Jim Denham makes the conflation of Israel and Jews explicit when he says, "This image also plays on the tired and
disgraceful antisemitic 'conspiracy theory' trope of undue Israeli (Jewish) influence on world affairs."
The conflation of equating Israel with the term Jew flows directly from the Zionist ideology that underpins the Israeli State,
but which also adopted by the AWL, and its members like Jim Denham. It thereby effectively denies statehood to non-Jewish Israeli
citizens, making them non-persons, erasing them from history, in the same way that Jim Denham has sought to do in diminishing
if not entirely denying the genocides against other ethnic groups such as Native North Americans, Australian and New Zealand aboriginals
etc., as a result of his Zionist privileging of the specific genocide against Jews in the Holocaust.
It is the same kind of racism, of course, that is applied by the BNP and other white nationalists, who seek to portray Britain
as being a nation for white Britons, and thereby deny other Britons the right to consider themselves really British. Every socialist,
can understand the racist nature of that ideology when it is applied to Britain, and elsewhere, but the AWL, and its members,
like Jim Denham, deny it when it is applied to Israel, which they want to treat as being different to every other state on the
planet, in defence of their Zionist ideology that privileges Israeli Jews over others, and by extension equates the term Jew with
the term Israel.
Its most extreme version comes with the fascists that Netanyahu has now gone into alliance with, whose ideology states that
God only put gentiels on the Earth to be slaves and serve the needs of Jews, as the chosen people! It means that they see the
place of non-Jewish Israelis in those terms, as being allowed to remain in Israel only on that subservient basis. This is the
ideology that the AWL is now logically tied to, in having adopted Zionism as the answer to the problems of Jewish workers rather
than socialism.
And, of course, the extension of that principle for other Zionists is illustrated in their support for fascists like Orban
in Hungary, who wants to adopt a similar nationalist ideology of keeping Hungary, and other "white" European nations exclusively
for "whites", in the same way that Zionists want to keep Israel exclusively for Jews.
It is a sorry state when socialists have degenerated to such an extent that not only do they fail to distinguish between nationalist
ideology and socialist ideology by adopting nationalist solutions to workers problems such as "nationalisation", by the capitalist
state, but where, in adopting such reactionary nationalist ideology, the logic of their position drives them to supporting the
idea that nation states should be exclusively for particular ethnic groups, such as Israel for the Jews, Hungary for white Christians
and so on.
The way that the right are using anti-Zionism as the equivalent for anti-Semitism, and the appeasement of that attack has
led them to widen the scope of that attack. As
Labour
List reports , right-wing Labour MP Siobhan McDonagh, is now claiming that to be anti-capitalist is also to be "anti-Semitic".
The idea was put forward also by former Blair-right spin doctor, John McTernan,
who wrote an article in the FT to that
same effect
Channelling Jim Denham, McTernan writes,
"As the historian Deborah Lipstadt points out, anti-Semitic tropes share three elements: money or finance is always in the
mix; an acknowledged cleverness that is also seen as conniving; and, power -- particularly a power to manipulate more powerful
entities.
All of these feature in the criticism of Israel and the so-called Israel lobby. They can be easily moulded into a critique
of capitalism, too."
The line of argument was illustrated to me some weeks ago, in a comment I received in relation to an article I wrote about
Marx's analysis of fictitious capital,
as part of my critique of Paul Mason's Postcapitalism . The commenter, argued that Marx's analysis of fictitious capital appeared
to be simply Marx blaming bankers and money lenders, for which read Jews, for the world's ills, and was thereby simply an expression
of the well-known fact that Marx was a self-hating Jew, much as the AWL, describe all those other Jews that do not share their
commitment to |Zionism. The commenter as evidence of this provided a link to a literary critique of Marx's
On The Jewish Question
, which is cited as proving that Marx was an anti-semite.
In fact, I pointed out that in nothing that Marx had written about fictitious capital, or what I had written describing Marx's
analysis of fictitious capital are bankers discussed, let alone Jewish bankers. The anonymous commenter, has, in fact, since deleted
their comments, meaning that my responses to them were also deleted.
But, this is the way this right-wing witch-hunt proceeds, by throwing a net to catch whatever they can trawl in, and at the very
least sowing the seeds of doubt as they require those being attacked to respond to their wild accusations. It means that any statement
can be framed to mean that there is some subtext beneath the actual words and pictures that is somehow anti-Semitic, if only you
know the relevant coda to unlock the true meaning, and anyone who doubts the meaning being placed upon it, is thereby a defender
of the anti-Semitic message. As with the attacks on Momentum, and the initial surge of membership supporting Corbyn, it is always
phrased in dark conspiratorial language, about unseen forces being behind what is seen on the surface. So, we were supposed to
believe that a few hundred Trots in Britain somehow morphed into 300,000 new LP members! But, Momentum now having shown that it
is a tame part of the establishment, is even able to recruit McTernan himself as a member.
The appeasement as with all witch-hunts only provokes the witch-hunters to widen the scope of their activities. The AWL, which
was at the forefront of helping the witch-hunters with their shameful support for the witch-hunting of Jackie Walker, was repaid
by having their own members expelled too, and having right-wing Labour MP's appear on TV, to characterise the AWL themselves as
"anti-Semites", despite their well-known Zionist politics. Yet, oddly, the AWL seem to consider that a price worth paying, as
their advocacy of Zionism seems to trump any other consideration for them in their politics.
It didn't take long for my comment of yesterday to be proved correct. Today we learn that Jess Phillips has claimed that Marxism
is necessarily misogynist, because it places class oppression above all else, and so now claims that as well as the Left in the
party being anti-Semitic, it is also misogynist. The attack of the Right, as I said yesterday will spread ever wider on this irrational
basis, using all of the usual conspiratorial language that such witch-hunts have always adopted. Rather like a Dan Brown novel,
it will imply that there are dark (Marxist) forces at work, of which Corbyn is the head of the coven (or even worse that some
unseen Dark Overlord is really standing behind Corbyn, who is only its representative on Earth (i.e. in the LP).
It will suggest that these dark forces do not speak openly, but only in codes and symbols that have to be unlocked by the forces
of Light, who like Jim Denham, can look into the minds of men and women, and see what is really going inside.
I actually found that despite the anonymous Zionist commenter to my article on Medium having deleted their comments, my replies
to them, were in fact still floating around
here
,
here , and
here .
As the right-wing extend their witch-hunt against socialists in the LP to claim that Marxists are necessarily misogynist,
as well as anti-Semitic – and the same logic presented by McDonagh, McTernon, and Phillips would presumably mean that the Left
must also be xenophobic, homophobic, anti- Green, and many other charges they want to throw into the mix – it will be interesting
to see whether and to what extent the AWL, join them in that assault, in the same way they have done in their promotion of Zionism.
"... In the case of Epstein, I was thinking not that he was a principal who had to be offed because he ' knew too much ', but was more like the racehorse whose head winds up in someone's bed. ..."
If you consider social democrat types to be Left -- the 'near Left' -- then they've made
great progress during the reign of Trump. It is true they are nowhere near dominance as yet,
but in any case the stuff the Deep State factions are struggling over, war, empire, funny
money, and other con games, are inherently corrupt and corrupting, and formal dominance could
only mean submission to the rules of the Game. Probably better to lose influentially; victory
is death.
In the case of Epstein, I was thinking not that he was a principal who had to be offed
because he ' knew too much ', but was more like the racehorse whose head winds up in
someone's bed. Or hearing that someone has been given plutonium tea. 'We can do this,
sucker!'
"... The speed with which US political leaders of all stripes have united behind the idea of a 'new cold war' is something that takes my breath away. Eighteen months ago the phrase was dismissed as fringe scaremongering. Today it is consensus. ..."
"... It is clear that there is indeed now a clear bi-partisan consensus in the US on China ..."
"... A US policy boiled down to one overriding component: 'hammering Russia'. "Hammering Russia" (he insisted repeatedly), will continue until President Putin understands there is no military solution in Syria (he said with heightened verbal emphasis). Russia falsely assumes that Assad has 'won' war: "He hasn't", Jeffrey said. And the US is committed to demonstrating this fundamental 'truth'. ..."
"... Recall how little time ago, the talk was of partnership, of the US working with Russia to find a solution in Syria. Now the talk of the US Envoy is the talk of Cold War with Russia as much as were his Aspen colleagues – albeit in respect to China. ..."
"... All this braggadocio is reminiscent of late 2003 when the war in Iraq was just entering its insurgent stage: It was said then that mere "boys go to Baghdad; but real men chose to go to Tehran ". It gained wide circulation in Washington at the time. This type of talk gave rise, as I well recall, to something approaching an hysteric elation. Officials seemed to be walking six inches above the ground, in anticipation of all the dominos expected to fall in succession. ..."
"... The point here is that the tacit coupling of Russia – now termed a major 'foe' of America by US Defense officials – and China, inevitably is being refracted back at the US, in terms of a growing strategic Russo-Chinese partnership, ready to challenge the US and its allies. ..."
"... So, as we look around, the picture seems to be one in which US bellicosity is somehow consolidating as an élite consensus (with but a few individuals courageously pushing-back on the trend). So what is going on? ..."
"... The two FT correspondents effectively were signalling – in their separate articles – that the US is entering on a momentous and hazardous transformation. Further, it would seem that America's élite is being fractured into balkanised enclaves that are not communicating with one another – nor wanting to communicate with each other. Rather, it is another conflict between deadly rivals. ..."
"... One such orientation insists on a renewal of the Cold War to sustain and renew that supersized military-security complex, which accounts for more than half of America's GDP. Another élite demands that US dollar global hegemony be preserved. ..."
"... Another orientation of the Deep State is disgusted at the contagion of sexual decadence and corruption that has wormed its way into American governance – and truly hopes that Trump will 'drain the swamp'. ..."
"... But all these divided Deep State factions believe that belligerence can work. ..."
"... Like any cosseted élite, they have an exaggerated sense of their entitlement – and their impunity. ..."
"... These élite factions – for all their internal rivalry – however seem to have coalesced around a singularity of talking and thinking that allows the dominant classes to substitute for the reality of an America subject to severe stress and strain – the fable of a hegemon which still can elect which non-compliant governments and peoples to bully and remove from the global map. Their rhetoric alone is curdling the atmospherics in the non-West. ..."
"... The leader of any nation is never sovereign. He or she sits atop a pyramid of quarrelling princelings (Deep State princelings, in this instance), who have their own interests and agenda. Trump is not immune to their machinations. ..."
"... One obvious example being Mr Bolton's successful gambit in persuading the Brits to seize the Grace I tanker off Gibraltar. At a stroke, Bolton escalated the conflict with Iran ('increased the pressure' on Iran, as Bolton would probably term it); put the UK at the forefront of America's 'war' with Iran; divided the JCPOA signatories, and embarrassed the EU. He is a canny 'operator' – no doubt about it. ..."
Something is 'up'. When two Financial Times columnists – pillars of the western Establishment – raise a warning flag, we must
take note: Martin Wolf was first off, with a piece dramatically headlined:
The
looming 100-year, US-China Conflict . No 'mere' trade war, he implied, but a full-spectrum struggle. Then his FT colleague
Edward Luce, pointed out that Wolf's "argument is more nuanced than the headline. Having spent part of this week among leading policymakers
and thinkers at the annual Aspen Security Forum in Colorado," Lucetr
writes , "I am inclined to think Martin
was not exaggerating. The speed with which US political leaders of all stripes have united behind the idea of a 'new cold war'
is something that takes my breath away. Eighteen months ago the phrase was dismissed as fringe scaremongering. Today it is consensus."
A significant shift is underway in US policy circles, it seems. Luce's final 'take' is that "it is very hard to see what, or who,
is going to prevent this great power rivalry from dominating the 21st century". It is clear that there is indeed now a clear
bi-partisan consensus in the US on China. Luce is surely right. But that is far from being the end of it. A collective psychology
of belligerence seems to be taking shape, and, as one commentator noted, it has become not just a great-power rivalry, but a rivalry
amongst 'Beltway' policy wonks to show "who has the bigger dick".
And quick to demonstrate his, at Aspen (after
others had unveiled their masculinity on China and Iran), was the US envoy for Syria (and deputy US National Security Adviser), James
Jeffrey: A US policy boiled down to one overriding component: 'hammering Russia'. "Hammering Russia" (he insisted repeatedly),
will continue until President Putin understands there is no military solution in Syria (he said with heightened verbal emphasis).
Russia falsely assumes that Assad has 'won' war: "He hasn't", Jeffrey said. And the US is committed to demonstrating this fundamental
'truth'.
Therefore, the US plans to 'up the pressure'; will escalate the cost to Russia, until a political transition is in place, with
a new Syria emerging as a "normal nation". The US will 'leverage' the costs on Russia across the board: Through military pressure
– ensuring a lack of military progress in Idlib; through Israelis operating freely across Syria's airspace; through 'US partners'
(i.e. the Kurds) consolidating in NE Syria; through economic costs ("our success" in stopping reconstruction aid to Syria); through
extensive US sanctions on Syria (integrated with those on Iran) – "these sanctions are succeeding"; and thirdly, by diplomatic pressure:
i.e. "hammering Russia" in the UN.
Well, the US shift on Syria also takes one's breath away. Recall how little time ago, the talk was of partnership, of the
US working with Russia to find a solution in Syria. Now the talk of the US Envoy is the talk of Cold War with Russia as much as were
his Aspen colleagues – albeit in respect to China. Such 'machismo' is evidenced too coming from the US President: "I could –
if I wanted – end the US war in Afghanistan in a week", (but it would entail the deaths of 10 million Afghans), Trump exclaimed.
And, in the same mode, Trump now suggests that for Iran, he is easy: war or not – either path is fine, for him.
All this braggadocio is reminiscent of late 2003 when the war in Iraq was just entering its insurgent stage: It was said then
that mere "boys go to Baghdad; but
real men chose to go to
Tehran ". It gained wide circulation in Washington at the time. This type of talk gave rise, as I well recall, to something approaching
an hysteric elation. Officials seemed to be walking six inches above the ground, in anticipation of all the dominos expected to fall
in succession.
The point here is that the tacit coupling of Russia – now termed a major 'foe' of America by US Defense officials – and China,
inevitably is being refracted back at the US, in terms of a growing strategic Russo-Chinese partnership, ready to challenge the US
and its allies.
Last Tuesday, a Russian aircraft, flying in a joint air patrol with a Chinese counterpart, deliberately entered South Korean airspace.
And, just earlier,
two Russian Tu-95 bombers and two Chinese H-6 warplanes -- both nuclear capable -- reportedly had entered South Korea's air defense
identification zone.
"This is the
first time I'm aware of that Chinese and Russian fighters have jointly flown through the air defence identification zone of a
major US ally -- in this case two US allies. Clearly it's geopolitical signalling as well as intelligence collection," said Michael
Carpenter, a former Russia specialist with the US Department of Defense. It was a message to the US, Japan, and South Korea: If you
strengthen the US-Japan military alliance, Russia and China have no choice but to react militarily as well.
So, as we look around, the picture seems to be one in which US bellicosity is somehow consolidating as an élite consensus
(with but a few individuals courageously pushing-back on the trend). So what is going on?
The two FT correspondents effectively were signalling – in their separate articles – that the US is entering on a momentous
and hazardous transformation. Further, it would seem that America's élite is being fractured into balkanised enclaves that are not
communicating with one another – nor wanting to communicate with each other. Rather, it is another conflict between deadly rivals.
One such orientation insists on a renewal of the Cold War to sustain and renew that supersized military-security complex,
which accounts for more than half of America's GDP. Another élite demands that US dollar global hegemony be preserved.
Another orientation of the Deep State is disgusted at the contagion of sexual decadence and corruption that has wormed its
way into American governance – and truly hopes that Trump will 'drain the swamp'.
And yet another, which sees DC's now explicit amorality as risking the loss of America's global standing and leadership – wants
to see a return of traditional American mores – a 'moral rearmament', as it were. (And then there are the deplorables, who simply
want that America should attend to its own internal refurbishment.)
But all these divided Deep State factions believe that belligerence can work.
However, the more these fractured, rival US élite factions with their moneyed and comfortable lifestyles, cloister themselves
in their enclaves, certain in their separate views about how America can retain its global supremacy, the less likely it is that
they will understand the very real impact of their collective belligerence on the outside world. Like any cosseted élite, they
have an exaggerated sense of their entitlement – and their impunity.
These élite factions – for all their internal rivalry – however seem to have coalesced around a singularity of talking and
thinking that allows the dominant classes to substitute for the reality of an America subject to severe stress and strain – the fable
of a hegemon which still can elect which non-compliant governments and peoples to bully and remove from the global map. Their rhetoric
alone is curdling the atmospherics in the non-West.
But a further implication of the incoherence within the élites is applicable to Trump. It is widely assumed that because he says
he does not want more wars – and because he is US President – wars will not happen. But that is not how the world works.
The leader of any nation is never sovereign. He or she sits atop a pyramid of quarrelling princelings (Deep State princelings,
in this instance), who have their own interests and agenda. Trump is not immune to their machinations.
One obvious example being Mr Bolton's successful gambit in
persuading the Brits to seize the Grace I tanker off Gibraltar. At a stroke,
Bolton escalated the conflict with Iran ('increased the pressure' on Iran, as Bolton would probably term it); put the UK at the
forefront of America's 'war' with Iran; divided the JCPOA signatories, and embarrassed the EU. He is a canny 'operator' – no doubt
about it.
And this is the point: these princelings can initiate actions (including false flags) that drive events to their agenda; that
can corner a President. And that is presuming that the President is somehow immune to a great 'switch in mood' among his own lieutenants
(even if that consensus is nothing more than a fable that belligerency succeeds). But is it safe to assume Trump is immune to the
general 'mood' amongst the varied élites? Do not his recent glib comments about Afghanistan and Iran suggest that he might leaning
towards the new belligerency? Martin Wolf concluded his FT piece by suggesting the shift in the US suggests we may be witnessing
a stumbling towards a century of conflict. But in the case of Iran, any mis-move could result in something more immediate – and uncontained.
If UK government is an example -- they are already on the same level. Look at Skripal case.
Notable quotes:
"... Now people might say "see the elites succeeded, they crushed the democratic will, got their policies enacted and successfully replaced Democracy with Oligarchism while the sheep did nothing". But this is actually where the elites (Political, Economic and Technical) show their utter incompetency in understanding statecraft and governance. ..."
"... The greatest danger to any state is NOT foreign invasion or even a rebellion by the peasants. Rather it is internal conflict between the elites within the society. ..."
"... If the elites sabotage the legitimacy of the vote by propagandized the masses so that they can't make informed decisions or become to apathetic to vote, then the entire process by which Western Elites resolve internal conflicts in irrevocably tainted and delegitimized, what will happen next time the elites have an major internal dispute? The losing side will simply see the failure of their political position as the result of them not being corrupt and dishonest enough to beat the other side so they will response by trying to subvert the other side's policies through even more corrupt and dishonest actions. ..."
"... Hilary vs Trump is a good example of where the US (and the west in general) is heading, there's scarcely a hair's difference between the policies these two advocated and the terrible consequences that the commoners will be subjected to regardless of who ended up winning the presidency. However, that hair's difference, while having no real impact of the massive majority of the world's population, it still meant tens of BILLIONS of dollars going to one group of elites vs another group of elites. ..."
"... Linking this back to Assange, he campaigned against the Western Elites control of the narrative and for that "crime" they will destroy him whatever the cost to the Empire's prestige, reputation, trust and self-worth. ..."
oh, I quite agree that the UK government is deliberately torpedoing Brexit through a
deliberate campaign of profound incompetence in the hopes that this will allow them to
prevent Brexit without outraging the voting public. However, my assertion is that the US
& UK elites while think this campaign is oh so clever and will allow them to subvert the
will of the people, they are in fact showing their true incompetence by choosing this method
of Publicly campaigning on one policy to get elected, then deliberately and obviously
sabotaging it.
in civics 101 we are taught that the advantage of a Democracy is that an "informed
populous, making informed decisions will enact informed policies that accurately represent
the will of the people (and hopefully be the best policies overall). of course, we all know
in reality that the political & economic (and now the technical elites) have always
despised the whole concept of Democracy because it restricts their power. Their current
vision for subverting the will of the people is through total information control or the
"control of the narrative" as they call it. But at the end of the day all this really means
is a massive domestic propaganda campaign aimed at the seething masses of plebeians aimed
that tricking the masses into voting as the elite require. However, a Democracy is still a
Democracy so deliberately mis-informing the populous into voting for policies that are bad
for the people, but good for the elite will create a dispirited, apathetic population that
isn't politically invested in the government.
Now people might say "see the elites succeeded, they crushed the democratic will, got
their policies enacted and successfully replaced Democracy with Oligarchism while the sheep
did nothing". But this is actually where the elites (Political, Economic and Technical) show
their utter incompetency in understanding statecraft and governance.
The greatest danger to
any state is NOT foreign invasion or even a rebellion by the peasants. Rather it is internal
conflict between the elites within the society. When civics 101 teachers say that "informed
populous, making informed decisions will enact informed policies that accurately represent
the will of the people", what they really mean (without being able to forthrightly state) is
that through the mandate of the vote the populous will resolve specific conflicts between the
elites and that the legitimacy resolution of the dispute is intrinsically & inseparably
tied to the legitimacy of the vote.
If the elites sabotage the legitimacy of the vote by
propagandized the masses so that they can't make informed decisions or become to apathetic to
vote, then the entire process by which Western Elites resolve internal conflicts in
irrevocably tainted and delegitimized, what will happen next time the elites have an major
internal dispute? The losing side will simply see the failure of their political position as
the result of them not being corrupt and dishonest enough to beat the other side so they will
response by trying to subvert the other side's policies through even more corrupt and
dishonest actions.
Hilary vs Trump is a good example of where the US (and the west in general) is heading,
there's scarcely a hair's difference between the policies these two advocated and the
terrible consequences that the commoners will be subjected to regardless of who ended up
winning the presidency. However, that hair's difference, while having no real impact of the
massive majority of the world's population, it still meant tens of BILLIONS of dollars going
to one group of elites vs another group of elites.
Everyday, throughout the world, people are
killed over essentially trivial amounts of money ($20 drug deals gone bad, $10,000 life
insurance schemes), does anyone really think that in a conflict over billions of dollars,
Western elites will behave any differently than a street corner drug dealer. Bear in mind,
that we have overwhelming evidence that the Iraq War, the Libyan war and the Syrian "civil"
war were about Western interest's desire to loot these countries natural resource (and the
Western tax payer to boot!).
Linking this back to Assange, he campaigned against the Western Elites control of the
narrative and for that "crime" they will destroy him whatever the cost to the Empire's
prestige, reputation, trust and self-worth. But as I said, their too greedy to see the bigger
picture and how their actions against truth, justice, and democracy will place the dagger in
the hand that slits their own throats. What group (the public at large, the military, a
subgroup of the elite, etc...) specifically does the deed is irrelevant, without a legitimate
way to resolve the inevitable internal conflicts between the elites, the end result is clear,
societal collapse.
But that doesn't bother Trump, Bolton, Pompeo and their mob. They think quarter by quarter.
Immediate gratification is the name of their game. They know that "in the long run we are
all dead". And they don't care what happens then.
Your viewpoint is the same as that of Jonathon Cook. He says "Russiagate" was a faction
fight between two groups of the Power Elites.
One wanted to keep 'putting the lipstick on the pig' which is predatory Capitalism, and
the other wants to let it all hang out and rape the planet NOW.
Just as there was a clueless "liberal" cheering group for Mueller, the Looters have a
fan club among the "right". Both sets of the applauding groups are just puppets. And of
course neither has recognized their true role in the unfolding dramas.
"How many other millionaires and billionaires were part of the illegal activities that he
was engaged in?" he asked. Even the BBC website has as its heading of a news story today "Jeffrey Epstein: Questions raised over financier's death."
The philandering and pedophilia of elites and politicians clearly gave intelligence againces
significant leverage over many movers and shakers within Western establishments
@Haxo Angmark Why
would anyone have to bring down Trump? The man is fully compromised, a puppet and the FBI has
already likely 15 years of material on him as revealed in Kushner, Inc.
There is the possibility that Epstein functioned as a pass to the highest echelons: you
would compromise yourself by having intercourse with minors, let Epstein record it, hand it
over to Mossad and possibly other agencies he worked with. To show that you can be trusted.
Not unlike Unz himself suggested and exemplified by McCain.
But that is not necessary for Trump. Netanyahu gets everything he wants. And the whole
Trump campaign was a distraction, bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson and managed by a former AIPAC
guy and Christian Zionist and personal friend of Adelson Steve Bannon no less. Anyone who
still believes Trump is not part of the deepest filth of "the swamp" is delusional and
ignores way too many facts.
There is no left, no right. There is no democracy. There is an unelected oligarchy and its
political puppets. Long since bought and paid for before you and I were even born
@peterAUS Well, the
particularity with Epstein is: Many people did and are paying attention. Millions.
And the elite knows that we know. As you said it yourself: this was not just a
cover-up. It was a demonstration of power directed at us.
And they are laughing at us; as they are getting away; as they are taking every bit of
freedom and sovereignty away which the patriot act hadn’t already devoured, through
bipartisan decision of the system which should (theoretically) serve the people.
The Dystopia is also already here: the cold-blooded apathy with which the ruling class in
Britain treated victims as in Rotherham, the Savile case and now Epstein exposing their true
characters, and those are also the leaders and elites who lecture us on morality: Ghislaine
Maxwell -- save nature! Clinton Foundation, Mother Merkel… It’s disgusting.
And so many unthinkable theories which were declared “conspiracy theories”
about WW2, the aftermath and our current reality turn out to be true.
But I agree: the internet allowed us to decode the illusion of the media Matrix and its
artificial reality. And it is those possibilities which the ruling class wants to snuff out
for good. So that the monopoly to manufacture consent, truth and reality goes back to
them
Systemic elite kompromat shielded with arbitrary acts spanning all levels of government. Now
anybody who tells you this is a democracy, or an open society, or a free country, or any of
that shit, is either a mental defective or a pedo CP star in Comey’s personal Playpen
stash.
You can’t pretend we’re ever going to vote our way out of this. We’re
deep in the forcible-overthrow zone. If you aspire to rights or rule of law lots of CIA
vermin are going to have to be Ceaușescued.
@Bardon Kaldian‘…All pimps are criminals. But not all criminals are the same.’
Indeed. Some grow up in circumstances at least as dreadful as those of their victims, and
while they indeed need to be locked up, are to be pitied as well.
Others have been given perfectly decent lives, and are even affluent — and yet still
commit acts of depravity and cruelty.
These I have no sympathy for at all. Who is worse: the person who has never known a decent
life, or the person who has been offered it, but prefers moral depravity?
Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed chewing up unfortunate children and spitting them out like
sunflower husks when he was done. There was nothing keeping him from being a reasonably
decent, moral man.
During the ensuing decade since Epstein’s conviction, the seedy truth has slowly
trickled out, exposing the dark, twisted, perverse sex slave trafficking operation that
Epstein and his bevy of co-conspirators recruited child victims as sex slaves from poor
neighborhoods in Florida, New York, South America, Europe and Russia, including three
12-year old girls from France as a birthday gift. Incredibly, his procuring pimp
co-conspirators and scores of powerful pedo patrons were all granted immunity…
This does significantly strain the overall credibility of the system, among those who would like nothing more than to believe
in it, but still have some conscience and working brain cells.
Yet having been raised fairly rural, with a significant respect for the natural cycles, this is nothing so much as watching
necrotic tissue decay even further. Only for those raised in fairly sterile conditions, does it seem abnormal.
this corruption in US politics and DOJ is now so so pervasive hat I think only way to clear the cancer is for trump to use the
Military to replace CIA, FBI, DOJ , clean out the Judges , clean out the Media and start again with STRICT compliance to the Laws
of the US Constitution.
The FBI /DOJ is clearly infested with the cancer of corruption.
The DC and NY offices need to be fired in entirety and replaced by mid America new blood.
I was wondering when I would see a Trump supporter explicitly promoting a military coup in the US in a Trump supportive blog with
the alibi of returning to "Constitution and Law strict compliance"...
No wonder a military coup is anti-constitutional....
I always thought all these stories of the "deep state", the "borg", "drainning the swmp", "paedophilia conspiracy theories",
"Epstein case", "white supremacism terrorism", and attacks by Trump, and his ideologues, against any US institution, were designed
to sow the enough ammount of distrust and confussion amongst the US population so that they become more rone to allow such an
outrage...
"The FBI /DOJ is clearly infested with the cancer of corruption."
Mainly since both ends of the bipartisan system try to hijack the independence of some these powers by placing their ideologically
kindred men any time they grab presidency. This includes Trump.
"The DC and NY offices need to be fired in entirety and replaced by mid America new blood."
A public officers corps which reachs its position by merits independent from political filiation is the best gurantee for a
Constitutional rule and a vaccine against authoritarian aims/intends like coup d´etats.
"... Last time we were promised someone whose integrity was “beyond question” we got Robert Mueller and a team of Hillary donors investigating a GOP President ..."
Epstein's suicide--while on suicide watch in a prison--is simply too convenient for too many wealthy, politically powerful
people (of both parties) whom he might have implicated. The investigation must be thorough, transparent, and by someone whose
integrity is beyond question.
We won't get a special counsel in a case
like this, but if I had the power to appoint one the choice would be easy: Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School. We need a
person of his exceptional ability and integrity to get to the bottom of this and stop the further erosion of trust.
Last time we were promised someone whose
integrity was “beyond question” we got Robert Mueller and a team of Hillary donors investigating a GOP President
"... What hopefully happens now is called "diffusion of responsibility". The AG is suitably "appalled". We find that the dumbest prison guard in the history of New York was rostered on that night. He was called away to the telephone- by what proved to be an overseas telemarketing call. The paper records got jammed in the printer. The supervisor had a flat tire on the way to work. The computer broke down. You know the drill. ..."
What hopefully happens now is called "diffusion of responsibility". The AG is suitably "appalled". We find that the dumbest prison
guard in the history of New York was rostered on that night. He was called away to the telephone- by what proved to be an overseas
telemarketing call. The paper records got jammed in the printer. The supervisor had a flat tire on the way to work. The computer
broke down. You know the drill.
I said "hopefully" because if an investigation discovers a perpetrator, then they will be dead in short order too. You always
remove two links between victim and murderer. That way the crime is impossible to investigate.
What this now means in practical terms is that HRC is free to run again for President.
Epstein may have been lured back to the US with some cover story of a get-out-of-jail fake death -- only the powers that be had
decided to terminate his contract.
"... Malcolm Wallace and LBJ had been closely linked. In the early 50’s, LBJ had gone to great extents to save Wallace’s life after he shot down a professional golfer who was having an affair with LBJ’s alcoholic sister. Although guilty of murder, Wallace ended up with a minor sentence. ..."
"... Interestingly, a Wallace fingerprint was apparently found at the TSBD “Sniper nest” from where Oswald allegedly shot JFK. Probably some insurance taken against LBJ by his co-conspirators… ..."
This reminds me a little of a almost forgotten incident from the 1960s
Some government inspector in Texas had agreed to testify about the details of a gigantic
corruption ring that was closely connected with LBJ. I can't remember the exact details, but
not long afterward, he was found dead, shot seven times.
The local Texas court ruled it an apparent suicide and that's exactly how it was reported
in the Washington Post and the other national newspapers
In 1984, Billie Sol Estes told a grand jury investigating the 1961 shooting death of Henry
Marshall, an official with the Department of Agriculture, that LBJ’s associate Malcolm
Wallace was Marshall’s murderer.
Malcolm Wallace and LBJ had been closely linked. In the early 50’s, LBJ had gone
to great extents to save Wallace’s life after he shot down a professional golfer who
was having an affair with LBJ’s alcoholic sister. Although guilty of murder, Wallace
ended up with a minor sentence.
Interestingly, a Wallace fingerprint was apparently found at the TSBD “Sniper
nest” from where Oswald allegedly shot JFK. Probably some insurance taken against LBJ
by his co-conspirators…
@Iris Shortly before
he died, Estes collaborated with a French journalist on a book called “Le dernier
temoin” (“The Last Witness”) in which Estes claimed that he had
participated in a meeting with LBJ in which the JFK assassination was planned. The book was
published in French (I have a copy), but no English translation has ever appeared.
The following is a portion of an op-ed piece that appeared in the New
York Times On April 4, 1944 . It was written by Henry Wallace, FDR's vice president;
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power
ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United
States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include
only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most
American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. They are doing this even
in those cases where they hope to have profitable connections with German chemical firms
after the war ends. They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be
so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.
American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition
among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand
for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery.
The European brand of fascism will probably present its most serious postwar threat to
us via Latin America. The effect of the war has been to raise the cost of living in most
Latin American countries much faster than the wages of labor. The fascists in most Latin
American countries tell the people that the reason their wages will not buy as much in the
way of goods is because of Yankee imperialism. The fascists in Latin America learn to speak
and act like natives. Our chemical and other manufacturing concerns are all too often ready
to let the Germans have Latin American markets, provided the American companies can work
out an arrangement which will enable them to charge high prices to the consumer inside the
United States. Following this war, technology will have reached such a point that it will
be possible for Germans, using South America as a base, to cause us much more difficulty in
World War III than they did in World War II. The military and landowning cliques in many
South American countries will find it attractive financially to work with German fascist
concerns as well as expedient from the standpoint of temporary power politics.
Fascism is a worldwide disease. Its greatest threat to the United States will come after
the war, either via Latin America or within the United States itself.
The full text is quite useful in understanding that there is no question as to how and why
we find ourselves in the present predicament, it is the logical outcome of a process that was
well understood during FDR's tenure.
That understanding has since been deliberately eradicated by the powerful interests that
control our media.
Pornography multiplies frequency, duration, angles, positions and sexual partners, an
endless and eternal sexual buffet, except that none of it is really happening. Similarly,
American democracy gives the appearance of boundless participation by all citizens, for they
can't just vote in caucuses and elections, but cheer at conventions, march in protest, write
letters to newspapers, comment on the internet and follow, blow by blow, the serial mud
wrestling between opposing politicians. Pissed, they can freely curse Bush, Obama or Trump
without fearing a midnight knock on the door. Alas, none of their "political activities"
actually matters, for Americans don't influence their government's policies, much less decide
them. It's all an elaborate spectacle to make each chump think he's somehow a player, in on the
action, when he's actually all alone, in the dark, to beat his own meat, yet again.
He has railroaded, premasticated opinions on everything, but without the means to act on any
of it. Only his impotence is real.
"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians.
Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think
these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a
membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families,
American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American
universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks.
This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you
have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits
ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish,
ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe
something else sucks around here like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice
campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope."
When Alex Stamos announced that the Internet Research Agency's ad buys were a drop in
the ocean, Zuckerberg was promptly taken to the Congressional Woodshed and told to report
to the Atlantic Council. Those two billion-odd fake accounts may be a fraud perpetrated on
the advertisers, but they are invaluable to US "law" enforcement and to US propaganda, where
the ability to open a fake account on Facebook gives the illusion of privacy.
With all due respect to Mr. Greenspan and his Lowell House creds, I think he fails to
understand that Facebook is now an NSA asset.
This is a fascinating article and it certainly put a smile on my dial. As an asset for use
by governments around the world, Facebook may be too invaluable to just let sink. One guy
reported that he was in a meeting with Facebook’s top brass including the Zuck when a
head honcho of the FBI came into the meeting and sang Zuck’s praises for all the help
that Facebook gave the FBI. So the question remains. Just how many “real” Facebook
accounts does Facebook have? Ones that people check on daily. Now that is the killer
question.
"... When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens. Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them? ..."
"... The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen, they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters. ..."
Perhaps, at long last, a serial rapist and pedophile may be brought to justice , more than a dozen years after he was first
charged with crimes that have brutalized countless girls and women. But what won't change is this: the cesspool of elites, many
of them in New York, who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to flourish with impunity.
For decades, important, influential, "serious" people attended Epstein's dinner parties, rode his private jet, and furthered
the fiction that he was some kind of genius hedge-fund billionaire. How do we explain why they looked the other way, or flattered
Epstein, even as they must have noticed he was often in the company of a young harem? Easy: They got something in exchange from
him , whether it was a free ride on that airborne "Lolita Express," some other form of monetary largesse, entrée into the extravagant
celebrity soirées he hosted at his townhouse, or, possibly and harrowingly, a pound or two of female flesh.
An honest assessment of the current state of American politics and society in general leaves little room for optimism regarding
the public's ability to accurately diagnose, much less tackle, our fundamental issues at a root level. A primary reason for this
state of affairs boils down to the ease with which the American public is divided against itself and conquered.
Though there are certain issues pretty much everyone can agree on, we simply aren't focusing our collective energy on them or
creating the mass movements necessary to address them. Things such as systemic bipartisan corruption, the institutionalization of
a two-tier justice system in which the wealthy and powerful are above the law, a broken economy that requires both parents to work
and still barely make ends meet, and a military-industrial complex consumed with profits and imperial aggression not national defense.
These are just a few of the many issues that should easily unite us against an entrenched power structure, but it is not happening.
At least not yet.
We currently find ourselves at a unique inflection point in American history. Though I agree with Charles Hugh Smith's assessment
that " Our Ruling
Elites Have No Idea How Much We Want to See Them All in Prison Jumpsuits, " we have yet to reach the point where the general
public is prepared to do something about it. I think there are several reasons for this, but the primary obstacle relates to how
easily the citizenry is divided and conquered. The mass media, largely owned and controlled by billionaires and their corporations,
is highly incentivized to keep the public divided against itself on trivial issues, or at best, on real problems that are merely
symptoms of bipartisan elitist plunder.
The key thing, from a plutocrat's point of view, is to make sure the public never takes a step back and sees the root of society's
problems. It isn't Trump or Obama, and it isn't the Republican or Democratic parties either. These individuals and political gangs
are just useful vehicles for elitist plunder. They help herd the rabble into comfortable little tribal boxes that results in made
for tv squabbling, while the true forces of power carry on with the business of societal pillaging behind the scenes.
You're encouraged to attach your identity to team Republican or team Democrat, but never unite as one voice against a bipartisan
crew of depraved, corrupt and unaccountable power players molding society from the top. While the average person living paycheck
to paycheck fashions themselves part of some biblical fight of good vs. evil by supporting team red or blue, the manipulative and
powerful at the top remain beyond such plebeian theater (though they certainly encourage it). These folks know only one team -- team
green. And their team keeps winning, by the way.
When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even
many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens.
Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality
is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them?
Why is most of the anger in this country being directed at fellow powerless Americans versus upward at the power structure which
nurtured and continues to defend the current depraved status quo? I don't see any upside to actively encouraging one side of the
political discussion to dehumanize the other side, and I suggest we consciously cease engaging in such behavior. Absolutely nothing
good can come from it.
Which is partly why I've been so consumed by the Jeffrey Epstein case. For once, it allows us to focus our energy on the depraved
nature of the so-called American "elite," rather than pick fights with each other. How many random Trump or Sanders supporters do
you know who systematically molest children and then pass them off to their wealthy and powerful friends for purposes of blackmail?
The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have
become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen,
they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters.
Unfortunately, by being short-sighted, by fighting amongst ourselves, and by taking the easy route of punching down versus punching
up, we allow such cretins to continue to rape and pillage what remains of our civilization.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up to, I suspect it has the potential to focus the general public
(beyond a few seconds) on the true nature of what's really going on and what makes the world tick. Revelations of such a nature could
provide the proverbial tipping point that's so desperately needed, but this is also why the odds of us actually getting the whole
story is quite low. There's simply too much at stake for those calling the shots.
* * *
Side note: I've been consistently updating my
Epstein twitter thread as I learn new information.
I suggest checking back in from time to time.
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. As such, there's no monetization for this site other than reader support. To make this
a successful, sustainable thing I ask you to consider the following options. You can become a
Patron . You can visit the
Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin
or send cash/check in the mail.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up
1. We can't.
2. Epstein was in the business to set up people with kompromat material ...
3. ...and did it for someone else , it appears as he was protected from above for many years.
4. These " elses " won't allow that the support of the Americans to forever fight Israels wars gets shattered.
5. I expect operation diversion & coverup soon. My hunch is that they will pull a 9/11 hoax as a last resort if things get out
of hand fast.
6. They did it in the past, they will do it in the future.
7. Human lives don't matter to them.
Michael Krieger said: "It's sad and mind-boggling how easy it is to divide and conquer the American public. Manipulating the
masses in this country is trivial. The next few years will not be pretty".
Despite all the news of how the elites have manipulated the American public, it still goes on, unabated. Americans, for the
most part, are dumb and fat couch potatoes. They are not going to rise up against their elite masters, because they don't have
the wherewithal to do so. So, the show continues on, and the elites don't seem to have anything to worry about, and do as they
will.
If Americans were truly energetic about reigning in the abuses of the elites, they would have done so back in the 1870's, when
Mark Twain wrote about the Gilded Age Elites. Here it is, 149 years later, and nothing has changed in America today. The elites
still rule, and everyone else is an indentured servant. Of course, there are benefits for the elites to keep the American masses
dumbed down, and letting them lead couch potato life styles. Doing so, keeps them in power.
I suspect it was the CIA or FBI. But the goal was to keep Acosta from investigating Virginia Roberts' claims. If authorities
did this they would have had to investigate Prince Andrew.
If they found her to be truthful, they might even have to arrest Prince Andrew (can you imagine this happening?). Or at least
ask him to testify in a trial.
If the truth came out, this would humiliate the British nation, and Great Britain was (still is) one of America's most important
allies in the "war on terror" and all our other neocon initiatives.
Acosta was essentially told to "back off" Prince Andrew (not necessarily Epstein, who was best buddies with "Andy.")
This doesn't mean Israel intelligence was not involved in some way. It just means that American intelligence was involved,
or wanted to protect key people. Hell, they still do.
We can be almost certain that the exact same thing that happened with Acosta is happening right now. Some prosecutor is being
told to "back off. Don't go here. Focus only on Epstein and Epstein only."
This is why Ghislaine Maxwell has not been charged and will not be charged. This is why the FBI has not raided Pedo Island
or Pedo Ranch. This is why Epstein's four "co-accomplices" have not been charged.
Prosecutors have again been told that "intelligence" is saying that it's okay to do this (charge Epstein with sex crimes),
but NOT okay to do this (investigate and arrest any fellow predators).
It isn't just the elites and we need to stop pretending it is
"Child sex trafficking which is the buying and selling of women, young girls and boys for sex, some as young as 9 years old,
has become big business in America. It is the fastest growing business in organized crime and the second-most-lucrative commodity
traded illegally after drugs and guns.
Adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States.
It's not just young girls who are vulnerable to these predators, either.
According to a 2016 investigative report, "boys make up about 36% of children caught up in the U.S. sex industry (about 60% are
female and less than 5% are transgender males and females)."
Who buys a child for sex?
Otherwise, ordinary men from all walks of life. "They could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse."
If Epstein was muslin would this be a crime? Of course not it would be part of Muslim Culture. Look into the Abuse done to
young girls in the Rotherham abuse case. BTW I am no sticking up for Epstein but the ruling elites and certain minorities are
treated different from Joe and Jane Public
"The Epstein Case Is A Rare Opportunity To Focus "On The Depraved Nature Of America's Elite"
This IS a "rare opportunity' for Americans to do just this (focus on how deprived our elite leaders really are).
If Americans really started to do this, for an extended period of time, and got, you know, kind of pissed off about this state
of affairs, we might even throw all the bums out. We might really "drain the swamp."
So this is a BIG story. Potentially.
Of course, the Powers that Be are going to do everything they can to make sure Americans do NOT focus on this story for too
long. Or that the "narrative" is controlled. (For example by focusing only on Epstein, not his hundreds of depraved buddies and
corrupt institutions).
I've been posting for 10 days that there are "too many" of these people. And they are too powerful.
Seems to me if authorities went after one of the "johns," they would have to go after ALL of the "Johns." And this includes
Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, former senators, governors, CEOs, secretaries of the treasury, bankers, etc.
It's the massive numbers of possible offenders that is probably keeping all of these people "safe."
And I still think Prince Andrew is the biggest fish the authorities don't want to humiliate/charge.
Even more so than Clinton. Half the country would throw a party if Clinton was charged. But in the UK, 90 percent of British
citizens would be mortified and greatly embarrassed if one of their Princes was proven to have done all the things that have been
alleged he did.
Fascism involved population mobilization in the face of the crisis. It can't emerge out of nothing. There should be a social
crisis like current gradual collapse of neoliberalism.
The second observation is that there is nothing special about fascism. It is just extension of method of controlling the economy
and population during the war into peaceful period. As such, it is not a black and white phenomenon and there can be shades of grey
in fascism too. Methods can vary between different nations considerably.
As or the USA sliding into fascism there is no need to that. Existence of super-powerful intelligence agencies makes
fascism with its methods redundant for the control of the economy and the population during the crisis. Inverted totalitarism
is the motto of the day. In a way intelligence agencies can be viewed as modern day fascist party with permanent well paid party
members (the prototype of such party was the core of Bolshevik party which consisted of "professional revolutionaries" who did not
shy from terrorist methods much like intelligence agencies like CIA) and powerful financial support from the state.
Powerful intelligence agencies are incompatible with democracy and on national level in the USA democracy is a sham. It simply a
Potemkin village hiding the rule of financial oligarchy (and associated military industrial complex and Silicon Valley perverts) via
inverted totalitarism mechanism. Only if we view inverted totalitarism as a flavor of fascism )which is questionable as
at the core of fascism is mass mobilization (think "Trump rallies" as a parody on that: "history repeats itself: first as tragedy
the second as farce") , which inverted totalitarism tries to avoid at all costs) we can talk about the USA fascism.
Inverted totalitarism is much more sophisticated method of ruling population during the crisis them classic fascism and it has
several advantages over fascism. Existence of powerful intelligence agencies makes creation of national far right nationalist
party with charismatic leader redundant: they are such a party and they are already in power. So in a way, the elections or
coup d'état to bring fascist leadership in power are simply redundant.
But if we talk about forceful rejection of the current corrupt democratic system )and neoliberal globalization pushed by corrupt
neoliberal elite) by population in favor of more autocratic rule we can talk about modern fascism as a reaction of the crisis
of neoliberalism. Revival of far right movement (which actually are not national-socialist, but neoliberal-socialist -- big
difference) and far right parties in Europe attest that such elements of fascism are still in play.
Notable quotes:
"... fascist deliverables often have excellent symbolism -- graphic treatments especially -- fascism is about more than symbols, although you might not know it from the ruminations of our symbol-manipulating political class. ..."
"... Until the end of the nineteenth century, most political thinkers believed that widening the vote would inevitably benefit democracy and socialism. ..."
"... The populist leader to complete the road to fascism generally has to come out of a democratic process. They get voted into power by a disgruntled populace and by the time the populace realizes they have made a pact with the devil, power has been consolidated and there is no going back. ..."
"... The Tea Party was a warning shot across the bow where the Republican Party itself was helpless to prevent establishment candidates from being primaried. ..."
"... That leaves the door open for a Trump to come in announcing he will cut the Gordian knot with the sword of his personality "I am the only one who can .." ..."
"... Can a Trump do an end run on a paralyzed Congress to take over? Hitler did it in 1933. Is our Constitution and the defenders of it engaged and strong enough to prevent it? ..."
"... If you agree on the definition of fascism (I like the second), and you agree there are stages of fascism, the question becomes what phase are we in? I say phase two. ..."
"... Fascism is nationalist, but not all nationalism is fascism. Nor does it have to inevitably evolve into fascism. Economic protectionism also has a long history, and very little of that is fascist. I think that what we're seeing is just a bog-standard right-wing nationalist reaction to the demonstrable damage of globalization, enabled by the complete dereliction of duty by the left. Liberal cynics and ignorant useful idiots can cry 'fascism' all they want, but their whining isn't going to just magically make these nationalist movements genuinely fascist. ..."
"... Read Paxton's paper, or better yet download The Anatomy of Fascism (2004). (It's free if you Google around). It is not a challenging read, and as you progress the deja vu gets increasingly unnerving. ..."
"... Mobilized society around the State as a quasi-religious deity works, and as long as it can be sustained as long as a flow of enemies endures. What else is a soccer club after all? Below the surface, such a consolidation of power would be driven by an oligarchy, eventually yielding a Czar-like creature, but whomever will need to justify their excesses. ..."
"... Americans claim to be patriotic and hang flags in front of their houses but you don't see them lining up to join the military. ..."
"... Inverted totalitarianism is what we have now and Trump is just a bit player as are we all. When it finally breaks down we are more likely to have chaos than goose stepping regiments. ..."
"... Fascism is just rich people hiring thugs. The richer they are, the more thugs they can hire. ..."
"... That could be feudalism as well, as I'm sure Gramsci would be the first to admit. Do you actually want to move to Stage Three? ..."
The word "fascism" has been much in the news of
late. Here is a chart of the year 2019 from Google Trends:
Interestingly, usage is more or less flat until the first spike, when
President Trump put tanks on the National Mall for July 4
, and then a second, larger spike, when he gave
his Greenville, NC speech, and the crowd chanted, of Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of
Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, "
send
them back
." Omar reacted as follows:
... ... ...
Omar is a serious person and that's a serious charge, so it's worth looking at. Certainly my left/work
corner of the Twittersphere was consumed by the word "fascism," to the extent that RussiaRussiaRussia was
drowned out. Notably, however, the two spikes, and the resulting moral panic, were caused by symbols: Tanks on
the mall, and a speech. (Interestingly, words about the border, like "concentration camps," and "fascism"
do
not
spike simultaneously
, even though one might expect them to. We'll see more about symbols in
the Appendices.) However, although fascist deliverables often have excellent symbolism -- graphic treatments
especially -- fascism is about more than symbols, although you might not know it from the ruminations of our
symbol-manipulating political class.
So I thought it would be worthwhile to take a deeper look at the work of
Columbia
historian
Robert O. Paxton
,
who is a scholar of fascism. Basically, this post will be the notes for the class I wish I had taken with him;
Paxton writes as lucidly as another great scholar of fascism, Richard J. Evans, author of
The Coming of the
Third Reich
and two wonderful successor volumes. I'm going to quote great slabs mostly from Paxton's
article "
The
Five Stages of Fascism
" (The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. Mar., 1998, pp. 1-23), but also
from his later book,
The Anatomy of Fascism
(2004). "Five Stages" is only 24 pages, and easy, so do consider reading it in
full, because I'm not really doing it justice; I'm leaving out all the historiography, for example.
And so to Paxton. I'm selecting passages partly when they contain useful ideas I just don't see in today's
discourse, but mostly to give us tools to assess the current "conjuncture," as we say.
Fascism and Democracy
From the
Five Stages of Fascism
, page 3:
The fascist phenomenon was poorly understood at the beginning in part because it was unexpected. Until
the end of the nineteenth century, most political thinkers believed that widening the vote would inevitably
benefit democracy and socialism. Friedrich Engels, noting the rapid rise of the socialist vote in Germany
and France, was sure that time and numbers were on his side. Writing the preface for a new edition in 1895
of Karl Marx's
Class Struggles in France
, he declared that "if it continues in this fashion, we
will conquer the major part of the middle classes and the peasantry and will become the decisive power." It
took two generations before the Left understood that fascism is, after all, an authentic mass popular
enthusiasm and not merely [1] a clever manipulation of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or [2] by
capitalism in crisis.
I think most "hot take" analysis by liberals would fall into the bucket labeled [1]; by the left, label [2].
I think the idea that democracy is, as it were, the host body for fascism deserves some thought. Certainly
there was no fascism as such until democracy was well advanced.
Fascism: Made in America?
From the
Five Stages of Fascism
, page 12:
But it is further back in American history that one comes upon the earliest phenomenon that seems
functionally related to fascism: the Ku Klux Klan. Just after the Civil War, some former Confederate
officers, fearing the vote given to African Americans by the Radical Reconstructionists in 1867, set up a
militia to restore an overturned social order. The Klan constituted an alternate civic authority, parallel
to the legal state, which, in its founders' eyes, no longer defended their community's legitimate interests.
In its adoption of a uniform (white robe and hood), as well as its techniques of intimidation and its
conviction that violence was justified in the cause of the group's destiny, the first version of the Klan in
the defeated American South was a remarkable preview of the way fascist movements were to function in
interwar Europe. It is arguable, at least, that fascism (understood functionally) was born in the late 1860s
in the American South.
(As an aside: It's probably coincidence, but Civil War tactics, especially by the time of the Overland
Campaign, were also a "remarkable preview" of World War I. Intuitively, I feel that fascism does not take hold
of the body politic without a lot of organic damage, whether in the entrenchments of the Civil War, the
trenches of World War I, or -- just possibly -- the opioid crisis, deaths of despair, and falling life
expectancy.)
Hitler's American Model
shows that Nazi jurists and lawyers came to America to research Jim Crow, and
thought very highly of the legislation; they saw Jim Crow as an example of modernity -- how advanced the United
States was. Of course, by their lights, Jim Crow was misdirected.
Mutability of Fascism
From the
Five Stages of Fascism
, page 4:
[Individual cases of fascism] differ in space because each national variant of fascism draws its
legitimacy, as we shall see, not from some universal scripture but from what it considers the most authentic
elements of its own community identity. Religion, for example, would certainly play a much greater role in
an authentic fascism in the United States than in the first European fascisms, which were pagan for
contingent historical reasons. They differ in time because of the transformations and accommodations
demanded of those movements that seek power.
And page 5:
Fascists deny any legitimacy to universal principles to such a point that they even neglect proselytism.
Authentic fascism is not for export. Particular national variants of fascism differ far more profoundly one
from another in themes and symbols than do the national variants of the true "isms." The most conspicuous of
these variations, one that leads some to deny the validity of the very concept of generic fascism, concerns
the nature of the indispensable enemy: within Mediterranean fascisms, socialists and colonized peoples are
more salient enemies than is the Jewry. Drawing their slogans and their symbols from the patriotic repertory
of one particular community, fascisms are radically unique in their speech and insignia. They fit badly into
any system of universal intellectual principles.
One result of the "Lost Cause" propaganda and the historiography of
the Dunning School
--
William Dunning, ironically enough, professed at Columbia as well -- is that the notion that there might already
have been an
American
Fascism (see above) is not available to us. Hence, we often see Nazis (and
generally Nazis, not even Mussolini) as the quintessential fascists. The argument can be made that
globalization has, in fact, created fascism of export -- some in my Twitterverse had no problem believing that
Trump was simultaneously a Russian puppet
and
a fascist -- but I just don't see how that helps fascism
to root itself (see below) in any given country, which is a requirement for it to grow.
The Stages of Fascism
From the
Five Stages of Fascism
, page 11:
But one must compare what is comparable. A regime where fascism exercises power is hardly comparable to a
sect of dissident intellectuals. We must distinguish the different stages of fascism in time. It has long
been standard to point to the difference between movements and regimes. I believe we can usefully
distinguish more stages than that, if we look clearly at the very different sociopolitical processes
involved in each stage. I propose to isolate five of them:
(1) the initial creation of fascist
movements; (2) their rooting as parties in a political system; (3) the acquisition of power; (4) the
exercise of power; and, finally, in the longer term, (5) radicalization or entropy
.
And stage 2, the importance of parties, pages 12-13:
The second stage -- rooting, in which a fascist movement becomes a party capable of acting decisively on the
political scene -- happens relatively rarely. At this stage, comparison becomes rewarding: one can contrast
successes with failures.
Success depends on certain relatively precise conditions: the weakness of a
liberal state, whose inadequacies seems to condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or humiliation; and
political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue to wield it alone, refuses to
accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner
. Some fascist leaders, in their turn, are
willing to reposition their movements in alliances with these frightened conservatives, a step that pays
handsomely in political power, at the cost of disaffection among some of the early antibourgeois militants.
That underlined portion does seem familar, doesn't it? However, it's worth noting that there's no "seem" to
American decline; how is a nation with dropping life expectancy not in decline? It's also worth noting that
"frightened conservatives" doesn't necessarily equal Republicans; it was not, after all, the Republican Party
that painted the anti-semitism target on Ilhan Omar's back. It's worth asking, then, whether centrist Democrats
would seek a bipartisan alliance against the left.
Where is the "fascism minimum" in all this? Has generic fascism evaporated in this analysis? It is by a
functional definition of fascism that we can escape from these quandaries.
Fascism is a system of
political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in
which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline
. Its complex tensions
(political revolution versus social restoration, order versus aggressive expansionism, mass enthusiasm
versus civic submission) are hard to understand solely by reading its propaganda. One must observe it in
daily operation .
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community
decline, humiliation, or victim- hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a
mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with
traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical
or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Speaking as an amateur, I think the two definitions map to each other, and both to the present day ("liberal
democracy stands accused" v. "abandons democratic liberties," but I like the second one much better, because
the language is crisper, and is testable. For example, "redemptive violence": During Reconstruction, the states
that came under control of the former Slave Power, a process achieved by great violence, were referred to as
"redeemed."
More from the
Five Stages of Fascism
, page 23:
Can fascism still exist today, in spite of the humiliating defeat of Hitler and Mussolini, the declining
availability of the war option in a nuclear age, the seemingly irreversible globalization of the economy,
and the triumph of in- dividualistic consumerism? After ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, the rise of
exclusionary nationalisms in postcommunist Eastern Europe, the "skinhead" phenomenon in Britain, Germany,
Scandinavia, and Italy, and the election of `
Mirko Tremaglia, a veteran of the Republic of Salo, as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
Italian Parliament during the Berlusconi government, it would be hard to answer "no" to that question.
The most interesting cases today, however, are not those that imitate the exotic colored-shirt movements
of an earlier generation. New functional equivalents of fascism would probably work best, as George Orwell
reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time. An authentically popular
fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or
more probably, these days, anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and
slavophile.
We may legitimately conclude, for example, that the skinheads are functional equivalents of
Hitler's SA and Mussolini's
squadristi
: only if important elements of the conservative elite begin
to cultivate them as weapons against some internal enemy, such as immigrants.
Rather prescient for 1998, I must say. (And much as I loathe black bloc, it may be that they have their
place in making these "functional equivalents" less easy to form.) Nevertheless, we do not have a "mass-based
party of committed nationalist
militants
," Yet. Paxton goes on:
The right questions to ask of today's neo- or protofascisms are those appropriate for the second and
third stages of the fascist cycle. Are they becoming rooted as parties that represent major interests and
feelings and wield major influence on the political scene? [TBD] Is the economic or constitutional system in
a state of blockage apparently insoluble by existing authorities? [Yes] Is a rapid political mobilization
threatening to escape the control of traditional elites, to the point where they would be tempted to look
for tough helpers in order to stay in charge? [TBD]
It is by answering those kinds of questions,
grounded in a proper historical understanding of the processes at work in past fascisms, and not by checking
the color of the shirts or seeking traces of the rhetoric of the national-syndicalist dissidents of the
opening of the twentieth century, that we may be able to recognize our own day's functional equivalents of
fascism.
And from
Anatomy
, page 218:
Fascism exists at the level of Stage One within all democratic countries -- not excluding the United States.
"Giving up free institutions," especially the freedoms of unpopular groups, is recurrently attractive to
citizens of Western democracies, including some Americans. We know from tracing its path that fascism does
not require a spectacular "march" on some capital to take root; seemingly anodyne decisions to tolerate
lawless treatment of national "enemies" is enough. Something very close to classical fascism has reached
Stage Two in a few deeply troubled societies. Its further progress is not inevitable, however. Further
fascist advances toward power depend in part upon the severity of a crisis, but also very largely upon human
choices, especially the choices of those holding economic, social, and political power.
Our immune system kills off little cancers all the time
; a metastatizing tumor takes a lot of effort to
create. Stage One fascisms are little cancers, killed off by a healthy body politic. Stage Two fascisms,
without treatment, will metastatize.
Conclusion
I think we're somewhere in Stage Two: Rooting -- or, to be optimistic,
Up
rooting. I invite the views
of readers!
APPENDIX I: "Cosmopolitan"
Stoller tweeted, of a speech by possible Trump 2.0 Josh Hawley:
Then ensued the most moralizing and banal Twitter discussion I've seen in some time, and that's saying
something. Hawley used the word "cosmopolitican" (
Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry here
), which Stoller's detractors felt proved Hawley was sending an
anti-semitic dog whistle, and hence Stoller, in defending him, was an anti-semite too. (Paxton: "not by
checking the color of the shirts or seeking traces of the rhetoric ."). To show how useless the entire episode
was, I'll quote The Nation's Jeet Heer:
Of course, the view that "all politics is based on a division between friend and foe" could be traced right
back to Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt,
whose doctrine that was
, and so
Heer
could be said to be sending an anti-semitic dog whistle. Of
course that's absurd, because context matters. Our symbol manipulating professional friends in the political
class would do far better to look at function instead of checking their
Index Expurgatorius
of words
suitable for censure and calling out. Liberals, and the left, have been calling out "dog whistles" for twenty
years, at least. It hasn't gotten them anywhere. Yet still they do it!
The populist leader to complete the road to fascism generally has to come out of a democratic process.
They get voted into power by a disgruntled populace and by the time the populace realizes they have made a
pact with the devil, power has been consolidated and there is no going back.
The Tea Party was a warning shot across the bow where the Republican Party itself was helpless to prevent
establishment candidates from being primaried. Gerrymandering and polarization means that quite a few people
on the right and left get into Congress and State legislatures simply by winning a primary. So blockades in
Congress started with small groups of people who could control if a majority vote was possible. Since their
positions are on the extreme end, no compromise is possible and the system seizes up.
That leaves the door open for a Trump to come in announcing he will cut the Gordian knot with the sword
of his personality "I am the only one who can .."
Can a Trump do an end run on a paralyzed Congress to take over? Hitler did it in 1933. Is our
Constitution and the defenders of it engaged and strong enough to prevent it? Can Congress with Mitch
McConnell in the Senate do it? Can the Supreme Court with John Roberts as Chief Justice do it?
"Certainly there was no fascism as such until democracy was well advanced."
What????? "Until 1922, Italy was a constitutional monarchy with a parliament; in 1913, the first
universal male suffrage election was held. The so-called Statuto Albertino, which Carlo Alberto conceded in
1848 remained unchanged, even if the kings usually abstained from abusing their extremely large powers (for
example, senators were not elected but chosen by the king)." (wikipedia)
Thus from 1870 to 1922 Italy was a not a democracy.
Under the Monarchical Constitution the King of Italy had exclusive power over foreign policy, which he
repeatedly used to engage in misguided and stupid colonial adventures in Africa. An huge insurrection in the
south was violently put down by the Piedmontese military, who also routinely shot strikers.
From 1922, when Italy became a republic, until 1923, when Mussolini took over, doesn't seem like a
"well-advanced democracy" to me.
As for Germany, you had the Freikorps running around assassinating prominent political figures like
Rathenau -- not to mention their earlier murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in 1919 instigated by
the future Social Democratic President Friedrich Ebert himself. Strikers and demonstrators were also
routinely put down with bullets.
As the first elected president of Germany (1919-1925), Ebert presided over a bloody civil war and "used
the presidency's emergency powers a total of 134 times. " (wikipedia) Seven years later Hitler was elected
to head a coalition government with substantial financial assistance from Germany's wealthiest citizens and
industrialists and also the from Catholic church. And as everyone knows one of H.'s first acts was to
suspend parliament. You could hardly call Germany an example of well-advanced democracy either.
Excuse me, but I found this post really hard to follow. And I tried.
I think there is a definite growth in a certain very conservative strain of nationalism and a rejection of
free trade across the world but I don't see a connection to the points laid out by Paxton. What we've got is
something totally new that seems like a reaction to globalization (and neoliberalism) to people on the left,
but maybe isn't that at all.
Well, they're class notes on a difficult topic. If you agree on the definition of fascism (I like the
second), and you agree there are stages of fascism, the question becomes what phase are we in? I say phase
two. (It also makes denial harder, but recognition easier, if one concedes that the Reconstruction South was
fascist, indeed the first case.)
I'm of two minds on this. I get what you're saying, that fascism is a gradient, and not simply binary.
So Trump could be seen as a step along the road to eventual full on fascism. But that seems to just be
another way of saying he, and the current right wing movements, aren't actually fascist.
Fascism is nationalist, but not all nationalism is fascism. Nor does it have to inevitably evolve into
fascism. Economic protectionism also has a long history, and very little of that is fascist. I think that
what we're seeing is just a bog-standard right-wing nationalist reaction to the demonstrable damage of
globalization, enabled by the complete dereliction of duty by the left. Liberal cynics and ignorant
useful idiots can cry 'fascism' all they want, but their whining isn't going to just magically make these
nationalist movements genuinely fascist.
The right-wing is perfectly capable of being racist and ugly (in fact right-wing politics is incapable
of *not* being ugly) while still not being fascist.
Read Paxton's paper, or better yet download
The Anatomy of Fascism (2004).
(It's free if you
Google around). It is not a challenging read, and as you progress the deja vu gets increasingly unnerving.
The one element that Paxton mentions time and again is the role played by the state's economy. Fascism in
France, for example, did not take hold because their middle class were happy campers. Of course, after
Hitler invaded, the French fascists ascended to power anyway and became the Vichy government. Because
today's .01% have not shared their wealth with the middle class, it might not take much to tip the balance.
After reading this, I'd say the issue is a lacking consensus about what "democracy" is that starts the
problems.
That lack has been manipulated. That would be key to it being a potent foe against fascism.
For instance, I don't see anything approaching "democracy" where the even concept of "royalty" still
exists but, hey, maybe that's just me.
in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective
collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence
and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion
Such as using drones to execute people?
Does that read like a definition of the CIA? Or the Current "Deep State"?
It's nice that there's a historical precedent that lends itself to academic analysis and distillation: that
there are trends and history repeats itself. But, it's all just part of the human condition, and a widespread
and inclusive Democracy is a historical aberration, and hardly something with any history of enduring.
Putting all this stuff to one side, isn't America today just experiencing a moment as the wheel of history
turns? With progress, or just the natural passage of time, people and power always stratify, and there will be
those left behind; those seeking power will mobilize those left behind by blaming their blight on some "other,"
(preferably recognizable at a glance). It is, after all, in the fundamental nature of man to seek (ever more)
power.
Mobilized society around the State as a quasi-religious deity works, and as long as it can be sustained as
long as a flow of enemies endures. What else is a soccer club after all? Below the surface, such a
consolidation of power would be driven by an oligarchy, eventually yielding a Czar-like creature, but whomever
will need to justify their excesses.
This is what it seems the Romanov family was before their demise, as the
wheel turned yet again, when they got just TOO greedy in terms of the local gini coefficient and even WWI
couldn't keep the masses sufficiently distracted.
Just a thought. As implied by Paxton, I don't think these times are exceptional any more than America is.
Arguably fascism was an outgrowth of WW1 and the extreme nationalism and imperialism that preceded it.
It's hard to see anything like that now. Americans claim to be patriotic and hang flags in front of their
houses but you don't see them lining up to join the military.
It seems to me that what happened in the 20th
century was so very much of its time. Inverted totalitarianism is what we have now and Trump is just a bit
player as are we all. When it finally breaks down we are more likely to have chaos than goose stepping
regiments. Start hoarding those canned goods.
That the times are not exceptional is hardly reassuring.
The times seem to validate that those
who are ignorant of their history are often doomed to repeat it.
The signs of rising fascism can be
seen in US militia groups and the political influence of their NRA, the rise of violent White Supremacy
groups bringing together skinheads and sweet little college boys as we saw in Charlottesville. We have seen
the growing political left-right chasm urged on by Gingrich. Polls show public support for police
malfeasance and a report that 70% of Americans oppose holding US troops accountable for war crimes. The
caging of refugees – something being called out as concentration camps (which by definition they are in that
the concentrate all the immigrants in one spot) is already a fact of daily life. Members of the growing
"locker her up" police state are posting racists and sexist things on Facebook which violate their oath of
office. Yep! Nothing exceptional there.
Like pre WWI, the immoral, sex-trafficking US aristocracy is being led by a president who seems incapable
of leading and governing, but he excels at staffing his government with billionaire crooks and scoundrels.
The billionaire class has kept us in wars profitable to them, at the expense of the middle class just like
the Kaisers and Tsars that created 2 World wars. Then we have the monthly Trump rallies which mirror those
of Mussolini and Hitler. Just substitute red MAGA hats for brownshirts.
Yep, nothing exceptional, however until this week, the US press could not bring itself to use the "F"
word.
I would highlight, on the list of symptoms, the classic stereotypical element: fetishization of the
military. (With budgets to match).
And add to the list of causes/development-mechanisms (stages 2-3): circumstances of foreign relations that
make that fetishization logical.
To me this was the story of post-2001 USA, and perhaps with a politically-inverted reprise post-2016. It is
also where the role of mass media kindof stands out – pushing this dangerous process forward with an enthusiasm
I find disturbing.
Also these parts of the foundation for a fascist movement were built not just in the Bush era, but non stop
ever since, and they span party lines. Perhaps I would call it a nationalist revival, rather than outright
fascism. In this sense I am thinking it is in fact at stage 2, except the rooting isn't in a specific party,
but the institutional governing networks that are common to both parties. That there is disagreement between
the 2 parties about whom to "otherize" is perhaps fortunate, but one particular danger is that future
developments may resolve this disagreement, in which case only a major setback on the foreign policy arena
would remain on the checklist before the full pattern is liable to repeat itself.
> the rooting isn't in a specific party, but the institutional governing networks that are common to both
parties.
I've been groping toward a formulation like that -- it's clear, for example, that the institutional
machinery for rooted fascism has been developed on a bipartisan basis since at least 9/11, as the camps
controversy shows -- but now I'm dubious about it. I don't see how militants would work for something as
mushy as the Beltway network. You need a party, something to
belong
to. The KKK wasn't a
professional association, after all.
> You need a party, something to belong to. The KKK wasn't a professional association, after all.
Yes, that certainly shouldn't be overlooked, trying to understand political power of fascism via
populist appeal.
The flip side, maybe, has to do with asking whether broadcast media (and social media) do answer to a
Beltway network? This includes the think tanks (their less academic side) connecting media, govt,
politics, and business the post 9/11 hyper patriotic sentiment was guided by neocon policy advocacy
network plugging into cable TV media. The effect on business did happen to align with the nationalist
interests (unlike the debate over NAFTA, as a counterexample) ..
"And much as I loathe black bloc, it may be that they have their place in making these "functional
equivalents" less easy to form."
They don't. Because these functional equivalents aren't forming to begin with. Maybe they could in the
future; we certainly have plenty of broken veterans on the streets (though they seem to mostly just be killing
themselves, over a hundred thousand suicides in the last twenty years. I'm curious why American versions of the
Stahlhelms haven't formed. Maybe Americans just not doing collective action extends even to former 'Brothers in
Arms'). But as of right now there are no Weimar paramilitaries engaging each other in bloody street warfare. US
Nazis can't manage anything more than comically small gatherings that inevitably attract far larger counter
protests that shout them down.
And should that change, it isn't going to be the combination of overzealous edgelords and undercover cops of
black bloc smashing windows that challenges it.
Did you recently observe in another post the importance of seeing "Jim Crow as an example of modernity" – or
am I having a deju vu as I read this one? In any case, Jim Crow did indeed emerge and develop inside American
modernity. It never challenged modernity, but rather was designed by modernity's boldest proponents to
safeguard and advance it. The education policy of the Wallace administrations in Alabama – which were
unabashedly progressive – offer a notable case in point. But plenty of other cases are reviewed in the
remarkable book, Deluxe Jim Crow, by Karen Kruse Thomas. The 19th-century KKK was also part and parcel of a
modern America (at least, as the New South understood it), and by no means a rejection of it. It was during the
Progressive era, and not some period of reaction, that the link between the 19th- and 20th-century incarnations
of the KKK were forged by the politics of the Lost Cause, largely through interventions in art-culture. There
is a remarkable passage in Milton W. Brown's classic book, American Painting from the Armory Show to the
Depression (1955), pp. 85-87, in which he parallels the early 20th-century art theories of sculptor-critic F. W
Ruckstull (born Ruckstuhl) with the cultural program pursued some decades later by Nazi Germany. Ruckstull's
oeuvre included monuments memorializing both the northern and southern versions of the 'Civil War', though
arguably with more sympathy for the latter than for the former. Brown's assessment of Ruckstull's work as
"directly foreshadow[ing] the Nazi artistic credo" is as persuasive as it is disturbing. I can only fault him
for neglecting to connect that work to the ideology of Lost Cause into which it plunged some of its deepest
roots to find nourishment in the myths of "'native instincts'" and "'racial purity'" (p. 87). The issue of both
Jim Crow and his brother, the 'modern' KKK, from the Lost Cause requires no demonstration. That fascist Germany
produced not only an art almost indistinguishable from that of the Lost Cause, but also carried out social and
financial policies directly inspired by the Jim Crow models of segregation and convict-leasing, cannot be
doubted. But this line of descent is by no means extinct. I will close by mentioning that rehabilitation of the
reputation of Albert Speer, the notorious architect to the Nazi government and hence a powerful influencer of
its cultural as well as military policies, was one of the by-products of Postmodernism; which is to say, of the
decades of neoliberal hegemony and the 'new' identity politics that so far seems to have been quite successful
at underpinning it.
Just reread Nicos Poulantzas' "On the Popular Impact of Fascism" in anticipation of your post on Paxton.
Poulantzas was a Marxist political theorist with some connection to the Althusserians. Like Paxton, he wrote a
book on fascism:
Fascism and Dictatorship
. I took several things away from Poulantzas' essay on
popular impact. First, the impact of fascism wasn't uniform as far as "the people" are concerned. Fascists
infiltrated, took over, or created organizations of which some people, not others, were members, especially
political parties. Fascism, according to Poulanztas, never had much appeal among either the German or Italian
working class. It mainly appealed to members of the petty bourgeoisie (artisans, small-scale tradesmen,
relatively well-compensated employees, and state employees). Based on the above synopsis of Paxton's views, he
seems to have entirely overlooked this point. Poulantzas stresses, though, that the appeal of fascism
fluctuated wildly, gaining support until it revealed itself as an anti-popular movement, subsequently losing
popular support, and then gaining again owing to international affairs (the Anschluss, the war with Libya). I
doubt such fluctuation is reflected by Paxton's stages. Finally, Poulantzas notes a number of reasons why a
variety of different segments of the populace found fascism appealing: it offered a startlingly effective
solution to terrible levels of unemployment, it tapped into justifiable (if not justified) beliefs to the
effect that the nation was being treated as a second-class citizen in the international community, and it
offered solutions to problems attending delayed formation of a nation-state in both Germany and Italy. Perhaps
most importantly, Poulantzas closes his essay by noting that fascism had whatever popular appeal it had during
the time of its initial ascendance owing in part to failure of the left. The problem, as Poulantzas saw it, was
not that traditional right and left parties just couldn't get along, reached a stalemate, and were unable
govern (which seems to be Paxton's view). The problem was that the left in Germany and Italy were unable to
effectively organize working class people so as to bring about the fundamental changes in society that would
have benefited this class. A sort of power vacuum came about, which fascists were able to exploit. In any case,
those failures of the left also appear to go without mention in Paxton's account, which is understandable given
that his politics are likely quite different from those of Poulantzas.
I suppose an upshot of this brief comparison of accounts of fascism is that I remain a fascism skeptic. I
doubt the term currently applies to the situation in the US, even if it is qualified as 'stage two fascism.' I
doubt too that stage two or any higher stage was ever reached at any point in American history or within any
region of the US, including the post Civil War South. To the best of my knowledge, KKK activities were about
restoring the position of what amounted to a landed aristocracy by way of race-based terrorism. Horrible? Yes.
Unprecedented? Doubtful. A harbinger of 20th century fascism? Almost certainly not. For one thing (among many),
I doubt that the Italian fascists were really about restoration. The German fascists certainly were not. They
were radical revolutionaries, in their own way.
Thanks. This is a chain of logic that I can get down with.
There's something about the Paxton framework that just seems like, if one wanted to, you could drop it on
almost any contemporary society with an authoritarian bent. China if you stretched it. From there, Russia or
the Philippines follow easily enough. Then maybe Brazil, and why not all of Central America minus Costa
Rica. Etc.
In fairness, Paxton, in his " Anatomy of Fascism", does in fact discuss Fascism as practiced by Italy
and Germany in the 30s-early 40s in relation to authoritarian and totalitarian governments (Franco's
Spain, the USSR and Stalinism, Mao's China, etc.), and does indeed make sharp distinctions. My reading of
"Anatomy" points to Hitler's Third Reich and Mussolini's Italy as being quite
sui generis
, each
arising from "special" circumstances that share certain Eurocentric features, and that the concatenation
of events that solidified Fascism in each country then are so entirely different from the peculiarities
of today's advanced capitalist "democracies", that compare-and-contrast exercises, or ticking one or more
of five boxes or stages is a fool's errand. All organized societies will produce rabble-rousers and an
eager rabble to be aroused, and within those societies there classically have been a marginalized "other"
to serve as a rallying point for alleged causative agency in "national decline" or loss of status for a
majority. Don't want to minimize Trump's crude race-baiting and all, but let's remember Godwin's Law in
our attempt to fit Trump's foot into a fascist shoe.
Did the author actually swiped Orlov's idea of "The Five Stages of Collapse"? I'm not sure how relevant a
seven month graph would be when talking about fascism. Now if you have a twenty year one that might be more
impressive but Google Trends is just one narrow slice of society after all. If you want to talk about fascism,
I would be more impressed if he talked about Obama getting rid of habeas corpus in the US – something that goes
back a thousand years in legal theory and practice. And why talk so much about the bogey men of American
liberals – the KKK – when you actually had an actual American Nazi party called the German American Bund and
which drew an audience of 20,000 at Madison Square Gardens back in 1939. To get a full picture, you cannot
limit US fascism to American shores either but must consider them in context of America's foreign empire as the
practices of what happens in the empire come back home sooner or later. The torture employed overseas has made
its way back home and if you want to a direct influence, look at the militarization of US police as they
receive military gear used overseas. Without mentioning the empire's yin of a fascist yang, you will never get
a real comprehensive understanding of this subject in my opinion.
The KKK example by Paxton is perhaps a bit of a stretch, because following the failure of Reconstruction
and eradication of the Republicans, the resulting Democratic Party in fact neatly incorporated and served
white supremacy and concomitant black suppression; the Klan was – as it were – an extraparlimentarian
enforcement tool, sharing membership with local and state officials and community white citizens, and in
fact was subsumed within the Party over time.
Democrats served the interests of powerful white elites, and
pitted poor whites against black people for generations in order to maintain its political hegemony, and to
resist any kind of economic reform and betterment.
Because there is always the tendency to point fascism as a failure of "democracy" – instead of failure of
the establishment or the failure of fascists! – it shows there is no working consensus for what a "democracy"
is.
Whether or not you think Hawley was using a dog whistle by pointing to a "cosmopolitan" elite, it strikes me
as absurd that he is actually combatting the real powers that be. Here's a longer quote from the speech:
The cosmopolitan elite look down on the common affections that once bound this nation together: things
like place and national feeling and religious faith.
They regard our inherited traditions as oppressive and our shared institutions -- like family and
neighborhood and church -- as backwards.
What they offer instead is a progressive agenda of social liberation in tune with the priorities of their
wealthy and well-educated counterparts around the world.
And all of this -- the economic globalizing, the social liberationism -- has worked quite well. For some. For
the cosmopolitan class.
In case your curious, Hawley has
raised
over $1.6 million from the finance, insurance, and real estate sector for the 2020 cycle alone. He
may not have been using an anti-Semitic dog whistle, but it's clear that to him lefty adjuncts below the
poverty line are part of this elite while the FIRE sector, which could not be more in line with this
"cosmopolitan consensus" that he's inveighing against, are not. The other top contributors according to
OpenSecrets, in order:
-Other (?) – $1,606,786
-ideological/single issue – $1,516,586
-Misc business – $988,954
-Lawyers and lobbyists – $601,553
-Agribusiness – $464,414
for a grand total of $6,786,139.
That's just for 2020! Hard to see an industry that hasn't made off well in this cosmopolitan consensus.
This is relevant to the overall topic of fascism because gestures towards anti-capitalism were key to
fascist success in winning some popular support but once in power they put all their focus on breaking trade
unions, rounding up communists, and then cementing corporatist control over key industries.
His speech marks a notable shift among non-Trump people on the right, but reading the entire speech it's
clear that his real priority is acknowledging the damage done to gain votes from a primarily white base while
taking money from the people who did it. I don't know for sure but I'd bet he'd be more apt to include adjunct
professors below the poverty line in the cosmopolitan elite than companies like Cargill.
" some even doubt that the term fascism has any meaning other than as a smear word. The epithet has been so
loosely used that practically everyone who holds or shakes authority has been someone's fascist. Perhaps, the
doubters suggest, it would be better to just scrap the term." p.8
Then in footnote he writes the most credible support for this view:
Gilbert Allardyce "What Fascism is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept" American Historical Review
April 1979
"To reduce a complex argument to its bare bones, since the Depression, the twin forces of
managed democracy and Superpower have opened the way for something new under the sun: 'inverted
totalitarianism,' a form every bit as totalistic as the classical version but one based on
internalized co-optation, the appearance of freedom, political disengagement rather than mass
mobilization, and relying more on "private media" than on public agencies to disseminate
propaganda that reinforces the official version of events.
It is inverted because it does not require the use of coercion, police power and a messianic
ideology as in the Nazi, Fascist and Stalinist versions (although note that the United States
has the highest percentage of its citizens in prison -- 751 per 100,000 people -- of any nation
on Earth). According to Wolin, inverted totalitarianism has 'emerged imperceptibly,
unpremeditatedly, and in seeming unbroken continuity with the nation's political
traditions.'
The main objectives of managed democracy are to increase the profits of large corporations,
dismantle the institutions of social democracy (Social Security, unions, welfare, public health
services, public housing and so forth), and roll back the social and political ideals of the
New Deal. Its primary tool is privatization [and deregulation].
Chalmers Johnson, Inverted Totalitarianism: A New Way of Understanding How the U.S. Is
Controlled
"Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both
compliant and repressive, a party system in which one (I would in 2019 now say either)
party, whether in opposition or in the majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing
system so as to permanently favor a ruling class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the
corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens with a sense of helplessness and political
despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle classes dangling between fear of
unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the new economy recovers.
That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the
integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine
institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly
closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at
identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens and domestic dissidents."
Sheldon Wolin, Inverted Totalitarianism
"The truth is that we were so spiritually and morally bankrupt that we could not even see
some of those lines: we stepped over them blindly. Other times we saw the lines alright, but we
wanted to cross them... It wasn't God who was dead. We were."
Ray A., Practice These Principles
"Oh where is the noble face of modesty, or the strength of virtue, now that blasphemy is in
power and men have put justice behind them, and there is no law but lawlessness, and none act
with fear of the gods?"
Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis
"Religion used to be the opium of the people. To those suffering humiliation, pain, illness,
and serfdom, religion promised the reward of an after life.
But now we are witnessing a transformation: a true opium of the people is the belief in
nothingness after death, the huge solace, the huge comfort of thinking that for our betrayals,
our greed, our cowardice, our murders, that we are not going to be judged."
"... The power elite is composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women, they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences. They arc in command of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern society. ..."
Posted by Political Issues in Sep 07, 2011, under Issues
Who really holds power in the
United States' Do "we the people" genuinely run the country through elected representatives? Or
is there small elite of Americans that governs behind the scenes? It is difficult to determine
the location of power in a society as complex as the Unite States In exploring this critical
question, social scientists have developed two basic views of our nation's power structure the
elite and pluralism models.
Elite Model
Karl Marx essentially believed that nineteenth century representative democracy was a
shape.
He argued that industrial societies were dominated by relatively small numbers of people who
owned factories and controlled natural resources.
In Marx's view, government officials and military leaders were essentially servants of the
capitalist class and followed their wishes therefore, any key decisions made by politicians
inevitably reflected the interests of the dominant bourgeoisie Like others who hold an elite
model of power relations, Marx thus believed that society is ruled by a small group of
individuals who share a common set of political and economic interests.
The Power Elite . In his pioneering work. The Power Elite , sociologist C. Wright
Mills described the existence of a small ruling elite of military, industrial, and governmental
leaders who controlled the fate of the United States. Power rested in the hands of a few, both
inside and outside of government -- the power elite . In Mill's words:
The power elite is composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary
environments of ordinary men and women, they are in positions to make decisions having major
consequences. They arc in command of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern
society.
In Mills's model, the power structure of the United States can be illustrated by the use of
a pyramid. At the top are the corporate rich, leaders of the executive branch of government,
and heads of the military (whom Kills called the "warlords"). Below this triumvirate are local
opinion leaders, members of the legislative branch of government, and leaders of
special-interest groups. Mills contended that such individuals and groups would basically
follow the wishes of the dominant power elite. At the bottom of society are the unorganized,
exploited masses.
This power elite model is, in many respects, similar to the work of Karl Marx. The most
striking difference is that Mills felt that the economically powerful coordinate their
maneuvers with the military and political establishments in order to serve their mutual
interests. Yet, reminiscent of Marx. Mills argued that the corporate rich were perhaps the most
powerful element of the power elite (first among "equals"). And, of course, there is a further
dramatic parallel between the work of these conflict theorists The powerless masses at the
bottom of Mills's power elite model certainly bring to mind Marx's portrait of the oppressed
workers of the world, who have "nothing to lose but their chains".
Mills failed to provide detailed case studies which would substantiate the interrelationship
among members of the power elite. Instead, he suggested that such foreign policy decisions as
America's entry into the Korean war reflected a determination by business and military leaders
that each could benefit from such armed conflict. In Mills s view, such a sharing of
perspectives was facilitated by the frequent interchange of commanding roles among the elite.
For example, a banker might become the leader of a federal regulatory commission overseeing
financial institutions, and a retired general might move to an executive position with a major
defense contracting firm.
A fundamental element in Mills's thesis is that the power elite not only has relatively few
members but also operates as a self-conscious, cohesive unit. Although not necessarily
diabolical or ruthless, the elite comprises similar types of people who regularly interact with
one another and have essentially the same political and economic interests. Mills's power elite
is not a conspiracy but rather a community of interest and sentiment among a small number of
influential Americans.
Admittedly, Mills failed to clarify when the elite acts and when it tolerates protests.
Nevertheless, his challenging theories forced scholars to look more critically at the
"democratic" political system of the United States.
The Ruling Class
Sociologist G. William Domhoff agreed with Mills that American society is
run by a powerful elite. But, rather than fully accepting Mills's power elite model, Domhoff
argued that the United States is controlled by a social upper class "that is a ruling class by
virtue of its dominant role in the economy and government". This socially cohesive ruling class
owns 20 to 25 percent of all privately held wealth and 45 to 50 percent of all privately held
common stock.
Unlike Mills, Domhoff was quite specific about who belongs to this social upper class.
Membership comes through being pan of a family recognized in The Social Register --
the directory of the social elite in many American cities. Attendance at prestigious private
schools and membership in exclusive social clubs are further indications that a person comes
from America's social upper class. Domhoff estimates that about 0.5 percent of the American
population (or 1 of every 200 people) belongs to this social and political elite.
Of course, this would mean that the ruling class has more than 1 million members and could
hardly achieve the cohesiveness that Mills attributed to the power elite. However, Domhoff adds
that the social upper class as a whole does not rule the nation. Instead, members of this class
who have assumed leadership roles within the corporate community or the nation's
policy-planning network join with high-level employees of profit-making and nonprofit
institutions controlled by the social upper class to exercise power.
In Domhoff's view, the ruling class should not be seen in a conspiratorial way, as "sinister
men lurking behind the throne." On the contrary they tend to hold public positions of
authority. Almost all important appointive government posts -- including those of diplomats and
cabinet members -- are filled by members of the social upper class. Domhoff contends that
members of this class dominate powerful corporations, foundations, universities, and the
executive branch of government. They control presidential nominations and the political party
process through campaign contributions. In addition, the ruling class exerts a significant
(though not absolute) influence within Congress and units of state and local government.
Perhaps the major difference between the elite models of Mills and Domhoff is that Mills
insisted on the relative autonomy of the political elite and attached great significance to the
independent power of the military. By contrast, Domhoff suggests that high-level government and
military leaders serve the interests of the social upper class. Both theorists, in line with a
Marxian approach, assume that the rich are interested only in what benefits them financially.
Furthermore, as advocates of elite models of power. Mills and Domhoff argue that the masses of
American people have no real influence on the decisions of the powerful.
One criticism of the elite model is that its advocates sometimes suggest that elites are
always victorious. With this in mind, sociologist J. Alien Whitt (1982) examined the efforts of
California's business elites to support urban mass transit. He found that lobbying by these
elites was successful in San Francisco but failed in Los Angeles. Whitt points out that
opponents of policies backed by elites can mobilize to thwart their implementation.
Domhoff admits that the ruling class does not exercise total control over American society.
However, he counters that this elite is able to set political terms under which other groups
and classes must operate. Consequently, although the ruling class may lose on a particular
issue, it will not allow serious challenges to laws which guarantee its economic privileges and
political domination.
Pluralist Model
Several social scientists have questioned the elite models of power relations proposed by
Marx, Mills, Domhoff, and other conflict theorists. Quite simply, the critics insist that power
in the United States is more widely shared than the elite model indicates. In their view, a
pluralist model more accurately describes the American political system. According to the
pluralist model , "many conflicting groups within the community have access to
government officials and compete with one another in an effort to influence policy
decisions".
Veto Groups . David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd suggested that the American political
system could best be understood through examination of the power of veto groups. The term
veto groups refers to interest groups that have the capacity to prevent the exercise of
power by others. Functionally, they serve to increase political participation by preventing the
concentration of political power. Examples cited by Riesman include farm groups, labor unions,
professional associations, and racial and ethnic groups. Whereas Mills pointed to the dangers
of rule by an undemocratic power elite, Riesman insisted that veto groups could effectively
paralyze the nation's political processes by blocking anyone from exercising needed
leadership functions. In Riesman's words, "The only leaders of national scope left in the
United States are those who can placate the veto groups".
Dahl's Study of Pluralism . Community studies of power have also supported the pluralist
model. One of the most famous -- an investigation of decision making in New Haven, Connecticut
-- was reported by Robert Dahl in his book, Who Governs? (1961). Dahl found that while
the number of people involved in any important decision was rather small, community power was
nonetheless diffuse. Few political actors exercised decision-making power on all issues.
Therefore, one individual or group might be influential in a battle over urban renewal but at
the same time might have little impact over educational policy. Several other studies of local
politics, in such communities as Chicago and Oberlin, Ohio, further document that monolithic
power structures do not operate on the level of local government.
Just as the elite model has been challenged on political and methodological grounds, the
pluralist model has been subjected to serious questioning. Domhoff (1978) reexamined Dahl's
study of decision making in New Haven and argued that Dahl and other pluralists had failed to
trace how local elites prominent in decision making were part of a larger national ruling
class. In addition, studies of community power, such as Dahl's work in New Haven, can examine
decision making only on issues which become pan of the political agenda. This focus fails to
address the possible power of elites to keep certain matters entirely out of the realm of
government debate. Conflict theorists contend that these elites will not allow any outcome of
the political process which threatens their dominance. Indeed, they may even be strong enough
to block discussion of such measures by policymakers.
Congress and the courts are the enablers of America's destruction. Legislation is
morality; it's the definition of how you live together, where people can live together and
raise their families. Our Congress instead serves the sex industry, whether it be in our
schools and universities or in our homes via television and the internet and magazines.
Yvonne Ridley in "**** in the USA" wrote on June 2, 2011:
"In Obama's Apple Pie America, cable and satellite companies pump *********** into
millions of homes where the American Dream has, for some, become X-rated.
"And the Americans are keen to share – I remember one of the first things that
followed the arrival of US forces in Afghanistan was the sex industry. Scores of channels
promoting straight and gay **** suddenly became readily available on television sets without
even the need to subscribe ."
And, our media, upon arrival, gleefully subjected small children to **** just to watch
their innocence torn asunder.
*********** and its consequences in America wears a Supreme Court robe... ***********
is the law of the land.
"... Of course the types who perpetrated this horror should go down but if you are naive enough to believe the lie that zionists pull all the greedies (jew/gentile/saudi) strings instead of the blindingly obvious, that all the greedies pull the strings of everyone they can, including those of the stupid & ignorant israeli settlers, then the odds of you anon, finding any 'truth' in the machinations of empire are slim. ..."
anon , Jul 11 2019 6:36 utc | 134 whatever, coward. I won't be staying long I see
little point is spending time at a place taken over by nonce's who can only read stuff that
adheres to their tiny world view. Otherwise they lose their sh1t.
Even worse few do more than hunt out anything, including stuff from the very same msm they
profess to eschew, which buttresses that view in an odd and pointless game of "see what I just
read, one upmanship". Actually getting out and involved helping even one of the humans whose
life is sh1t thanks to the empire is never even considered.
Of course the types who perpetrated this horror should go down but if you are naive
enough to believe the lie that zionists pull all the greedies (jew/gentile/saudi) strings
instead of the blindingly obvious, that all the greedies pull the strings of everyone they can,
including those of the stupid & ignorant israeli settlers, then the odds of you anon,
finding any 'truth' in the machinations of empire are slim.
If there weren't any twisted Clintons or Trumps prepared do do any damn thing just to
sodomise a preadolescent girl, no one would abduct the girls in the first place.
Every f++ker who went to edelsteins island should be locked up for the rest of their lives
unless they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they only cut the grass/washed the
dishes.
ps if 'the jews' control everything why are so many of em on the bones of their arses?
Surely any jew who was stuck with driving a cab/pushing a pen/ or even robbing a bank would
just manipulate the nearest billionaire 'goy' into handing over his/her dosh?
(((Debisdead))) comes back from the dead to tell everyone the rampant child abuse is the
fault of anyone except the jewish names actually involved...
You said it.
What brought me here at 3:30 am was an Amber Alert on my phone, with an incredibly obnoxious
alarm, for a child apparently abducted 500kms away. I've received three such alerts in the past
hour so I know everyone in Ontario will be talking about it tomorrow.
"... As Congress arrives back into town and the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees prepare to question ex-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller on July 17, partisan lines are being drawn even more sharply, as Russias-gate blossoms into Deep-State-gate. On Sunday, a top Republican legislator, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the gloves off in an unusually acerbic public attack on former leaders of the FBI and CIA. ..."
"... "The media went along with this – actually, keeping this farcical, ridiculous thought going that the President of the United States was somehow involved in a conspiracy with Russia against his own country." ..."
"... Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. No fan of the current President, Ray has been trained to follow and analyze the facts, wherever they may lead. He spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, and prepared the President's Daily Brief for three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). ..."
"... Mr. McGovern you are right in your analysis. Obama is in this up to his neck, however there will be a limited investigation at best because the Jews and Israel don't want this. They are involved and a real investigation would show what control they have over the FBI and CIA. ..."
"... The world is controlled by the Corporate Fascist Military-Intelligence Police State in which governments are nothing more than Proxies with Intelligence Agencies who work against the average citizen and for the Corporations. Politicians like Trump are nothing more than figureheads who must "Toe the Line" or else. ..."
As Congress arrives back into town and the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees
prepare to question ex-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller on July 17, partisan lines are being
drawn even more sharply, as Russias-gate blossoms into Deep-State-gate. On Sunday, a top
Republican legislator, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the gloves off in an unusually acerbic
public attack on former leaders of the FBI and CIA.
"There is no doubt to me there was severe, serious abuses that were carried out in the FBI
and, I believe, top levels of the CIA against the President of the United States or, at that
time, presidential candidate Donald Trump," according to The Hill.
King (image on the right), a senior congressman specializing in national security, twice
chaired the House Homeland Security Committee and currently heads its Subcommittee on
Counterterrorism and Intelligence. He also served for several years on the House Intelligence
Committee.
He asserted:
"There was no legal basis at all for them to begin this investigation of his campaign
– and the way they carried it forward, and the way information was leaked. All of this
is going to come out. It's going to show the bias. It's going to show the baselessness of the
investigation and I would say the same thing if this were done to Hillary Clinton or Bernie
Sanders It's just wrong."
The Long Island Republican added a well aimed swipe at what passes for the media today:
"The media went along with this – actually, keeping this farcical, ridiculous
thought going that the President of the United States was somehow involved in a conspiracy
with Russia against his own country."
According to King, the Justice Department's review, ordered by Attorney General William Barr
, would prove that former officials acted improperly. He was alluding to the investigation led
by John Durham , U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. Sounds nice. But waiting for Durham to complete
his investigation at a typically lawyerly pace would, I fear, be much like the experience of
waiting for Mueller to finish his; that is, like waiting for Godot. What about now?
So Where is the IG Report on FISA?
That's the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his
report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan , former FBI Director
James Comey , former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , former Deputy Attorneys General Sally
Yates and Rod Rosenstein , and Dana Boente -- Boente being the only signer of the relevant FISA
applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI library; at
last report, he is FBI General Counsel!).
The DOJ inspector General's investigation, launched in March 2018, has centered on whether
the FBI and DOJ filing of four FISA applications and renewals beginning in October 2016 to
surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page amounted to abuse of the FISA process.
(Fortunately for the IG, Obama's top intelligence and law enforcement officials were so sure
that Hillary Clinton would win that they did not do much to hide their tracks.)
The Washington Examiner
reported last Tuesday, "The Justice Department inspector general's investigation of
potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is complete, a Republican
congressman said, though a report on its findings might not be released for a month." The
report continued:
"House Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe (R, Texas) said Monday he'd met with DOJ
watchdog Michael Horowitz last week about his FISA abuse report. In a media interview,
Ratcliffe said they'd discussed the timing, but not the content of his report and Horowitz
'related that his team's investigative work is complete and they're now in the process of
drafting that report. Ratcliffe said he was doubtful that Horowitz's report would be made
available to the public or the Congress anytime soon. 'He [Horowitz] did relay that as much
as 20% of his report is going to include classified information, so that draft report will
have to undergo a classification review at the FBI and at the Department of Justice,'
Ratcliffe said. 'So, while I'm hopeful that we members of Congress might see it before the
August recess, I'm not too certain about that.'"
Earlier, Horowitz had predicted that his report would be ready in May or June but there may,
in fact, be good reason for some delay. Fox News reported Friday that "key
witnesses sought for questioning by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz
(image on the left) early in his investigation into alleged government surveillance abuse have
come forward at the 11th hour." According to Fox's sources, at least one witness outside the
Justice Department and FBI has started cooperating -- a breakthrough that came after Durham was
assigned to lead a separate investigation into the origins of the FBI's 2016 Russia case that
led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe.
"Classification," however, has been one of the Deep State's favorite tactics to stymie
investigations -- especially when the material in question yields serious embarrassment or
reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge.
Judging by past precedent, Deep State intelligence and law enforcement officials will do all
they can to use the "but-it's-classified" excuse to avoid putting themselves and their former
colleagues in legal jeopardy. (Though this would violate Obama's executive order 13526 ,
prohibiting classification of embarrassing or criminal information).
It is far from clear that DOJ IG Horowitz and Attorney General Barr will prevail in the end,
even though President Trump has given Barr nominal authority to declassify as necessary. Why
are the the stakes so extraordinarily high?
What Did Obama Know, and When Did He Know It?
Recall that in a Sept. 2, 2016 text message to the FBI's then-deputy chief of
counterintelligence Peter Strzok, his girlfriend and then-top legal adviser to Deputy FBI
Director McCabe, Lisa Page , wrote that she was preparing talking points because the president
"wants to know everything we're doing." [Emphasis added.] It does not seem likely that
the Director of National Intelligence, DOJ, FBI, and CIA all kept President Obama in the dark
about their FISA and other machinations -- although it is possible they did so out of a desire
to provide him with "plausible denial."
It seems more likely that Obama's closest intelligence confidant, Brennan, told him about
the shenanigans with FISA, that Obama gave him approval (perhaps just tacit approval), and that
Brennan used that to harness top intelligence and law enforcement officials behind the effort
to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him.
Moreover, one should not rule out seeing in the coming months an "Obama-made-us-do-it"
defense -- whether grounded in fact or not -- by Brennan and perhaps the rest of the gang.
Brennan may even have a piece of paper recording the President's "approval" for this or that --
or could readily have his former subordinates prepare one that appears authentic.
Reining in Devin Nunes
That the Deep State retains formidable power can be seen in the repeated
Lucy-holding-then-withdrawing-the-football-for-Charlie Brown treatment experienced by House
Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, Devin Nunes (R-CA, image on the right). On April 5,
2019, in the apparent belief he had a green light to go on the offensive, Nunes
wrote that committee Republicans "will soon be submitting criminal referrals on numerous
individuals involved in the abuse of intelligence for political purposes. These people must be
held to account to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future."
On April 7, Nunes was even more specific, telling Fox News that he was preparing to send
eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice "this week," concerning alleged
misconduct during the Trump-Russia investigation, including leaks of "highly classified
material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the FISA court. It seemed to be
no-holds-barred for Nunes, who had begun to
talk publicly about prison time for those who might be brought to trial.
Except for Fox, the corporate media ignored Nunes's explosive comments. The media seemed
smugly convinced that Nunes's talk of "referrals" could be safely ignored -- even though a new
sheriff, Barr, had come to town. And sure enough, now, three months later, where are the
criminal referrals?
There is ample evidence that President Trump is afraid to run afoul of the Deep State
functionaries he inherited. And the Deep State almost always wins. But if Attorney General Barr
leans hard on the president to unfetter Nunes, IG Horowitz, Durham and like-minded
investigators, all hell may break lose, because the evidence against those who took serious
liberties with the law is staring them all in the face.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. No fan of the current President, Ray has been trained to
follow and analyze the facts, wherever they may lead. He spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, and
prepared the President's Daily Brief for three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Mr. McGovern you are right in your analysis. Obama is in this up to his neck, however
there will be a limited investigation at best because the Jews and Israel don't want this.
They are involved and a real investigation would show what control they have over the FBI and
CIA.
Trump by now realizes these agencies can make anything up and the Jewish owned and
controlled media will do their bidding. I have to assume that Trump has come to the
conclusion that he wasn't suppose to win and that the NWO wasn't happy with that because he
stands in their way especially on World Trade and Immigration.
The world is controlled by the Corporate Fascist Military-Intelligence Police State in
which governments are nothing more than Proxies with Intelligence Agencies who work against
the average citizen and for the Corporations. Politicians like Trump are nothing more than
figureheads who must "Toe the Line" or else.
I believe Trump knows he could be assassinated at any time. Obama the "God King" did his
part for NWO and that's why he gets a King's Ransom for his speeches for reading a
teleprompter and banging on his chest and saying, "I did that." What he is really saying is I
did that for you -- now where's my check!
"... Serial pederast Jeffrey Epstein is going to be arrested again. The big questions are why? And why now? I never doubted Donald Trump's sincerity in wanting Hillary in jail. But the reality is that Trump was not in any position to do so. Until a few months ago. ..."
"... Mueller, his staff of hatchetmen, the Obama administration and the rest of the corrupt old-guard in D.C. fully expected to be allowed free rein to convict Trump politically of Obstruction of Justice based on an interpretation of Federal Statutes that could only be justified in the world of Philip K. Dick's Minority Report. When that didn't happen, they are now looking at potential blowback from a vain and vindictive man occupying the supposedly most powerful office in the world. ..."
"... It seems John Bolton has been more president than Trump recently. ..."
"... I was cautiously optimistic that Trump would turn the corner on his presidency now that Mueller, impeachment and the rest of it would lift from his shoulders. His foreign policy maneuvers didn't fill me with much, if any, confirmation of this hope. ..."
"... Because this goes directly to the heart of the matter. Trump left the Clintons' social circle in disgust and I'm convinced he ran to stop her corrupt sell out of the U.S. Never forget that, while corruption is rampant in D.C., it is not all-pervasive. It's not a black and white thing. ..."
"... The level of corruption of the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury and the intelligence agencies needed to coordinate the RussiaGate hoax all to serve as Hillary's revenge porn was too much for enough people. ..."
"... And there are still plenty of people in all of those departments willing to step up now that the board state has changed. Remember back when Trump said we should just leave Hillary be, she's been through enough? That wasn't him capitulating to the Deep State, that was him offering her a way out. He knew then what was going on but thought he was powerless to stop it, politically. ..."
"... And Robert Mueller is up to his neck in this. Because it was Mueller who helped Epstein mostly get off the hook the last time and had the court documents sealed. ..."
"... Even if Barr and Trump have a marriage of convenience here, it doesn't matter. What matters is that Epstein will no longer be able to hide behind Clinton bag men and will this time have to cut a real deal to stay out of gen pop. ..."
"... This Epstein arrest is a testament to what happens when the pendulum swings too far in one direction. Where despicable people get away with the most heinous acts simply because they are connected in a web of corruption and venality. ..."
"... Maybe this is the moment of Peak Swamp? Maybe it's the moment where we can see things begin, ever so slightly to improve. Is it too little, too late? Likely. But something had to be done to keep our faith in our political and social institutions intact. Because otherwise that way leads to only chaos and collapse. ..."
"Bernie Birnbaum is a horse of a different color, ethics-wise that is...
...as in he ain't got none!"
-- Johnny Caspar, "Miller's Crossing"
Serial pederast Jeffrey Epstein is going to be arrested again. The big questions are why? And why now? I never doubted Donald Trump's sincerity in wanting Hillary in jail. But the reality is that Trump was not in any position to
do so. Until a few months ago.
When Attorney General William Barr ended the Mueller investigation back in February that was a turning point. I talked about
it back then in a piece called "
The Old Political Order is Just
Old ."
Mueller, his staff of hatchetmen, the Obama administration and the rest of the corrupt old-guard in D.C. fully expected to
be allowed free rein to convict Trump politically of Obstruction of Justice based on an interpretation of Federal Statutes that
could only be justified in the world of Philip K. Dick's Minority Report. When that didn't happen, they are now looking at potential blowback from a vain and vindictive man occupying the supposedly
most powerful office in the world.
But is that really the case anymore? It seems John Bolton has been more president than Trump recently.
I was cautiously optimistic that Trump would turn the corner on his presidency now that Mueller, impeachment and the rest of
it would lift from his shoulders. His foreign policy maneuvers didn't fill me with much, if any, confirmation of this hope.
But domestically signs were there that he had stabilized the battlefield.
Epstein's arrest tells me he's now out for blood.
Because this goes directly to the heart of the matter. Trump left the Clintons' social circle in disgust and I'm convinced he
ran to stop her corrupt sell out of the U.S. Never forget that, while corruption is rampant in D.C., it is not all-pervasive. It's not a black and white thing.
William Barr may not be a Boy Scout or anything but even he, like Trump,
has a disgust circuit.
And that circuit has a threshold.
The level of corruption of the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury and the intelligence agencies needed to coordinate the
RussiaGate hoax all to serve as Hillary's revenge porn was too much for enough people.
And there are still plenty of people in all of those departments willing to step up now that the board state has changed. Remember back when Trump said we should just leave Hillary be, she's been through enough? That wasn't him capitulating to the
Deep State, that was him offering her a way out. He knew then what was going on but thought he was powerless to stop it, politically.
To go after her you go after the person who is her Achilles' heel, Epstein through his association with Bill. Because what if
this isn't just about Bill's antics? But this is more than just Hillary and Bill. This is likely far deeper a rabbit hole than anyone in D.C. wants to admit. Don't think for a second that Epstein hasn't been
blackmailing very prominent people for years. Because he has. And they are all now scared to death.
And Robert Mueller is up to his neck in this. Because it was Mueller who helped Epstein mostly get off the hook the last time
and had the court documents sealed.
Now that Mike Cernovich worked to get those documents unsealed, we have an arrest warrant a week later by a Justice Department
led by someone, at this point, loyal to Trump.
Even if Barr and Trump have a marriage of convenience here, it doesn't matter. What matters is that Epstein will no longer be able to hide behind Clinton bag men and will this time have to cut a real deal
to stay out of gen pop.
This process will be slow and painful, but it will grind to the kind of conclusion that will only benefit Trump's re-election
bid. It will be an epic drip feed of leaks, innuendos, implications, indictments and the rest.
Because there comes a point where the Alinsky method of accusing your enemy of the thing you do backfires when it's raping 14-year-old
girls.
Once this thing gets a head of steam, once the #MeToo crowd gets a hold of this, there won't be anyone left standing. I always
said Hillary would indict herself. Her insane lust for power and revenge against her obstacles led us here. And it will lead her
to the kind of shame and disgrace that befits her avarice.
When Nancy Pelosi's daughter is out there
signaling for her mother on this immediately, you know this is bad. Pelosi doesn't roll over for nothing folks. Think what you want
about her but she's a pitbull. And she rolled over on border wall funding last week.
This Epstein arrest is a testament to what happens when the pendulum swings too far in one direction. Where despicable people
get away with the most heinous acts simply because they are connected in a web of corruption and venality.
Maybe this is the moment of Peak Swamp? Maybe it's the moment where we can see things begin, ever so slightly to improve.
Is it too little, too late? Likely. But something had to be done to keep our faith in our political and social institutions intact.
Because otherwise that way leads to only chaos and collapse.
* * *
Join my Patreon because you also weep for humanity at where
these people have led us.
"... Brand's fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political order, calling it discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was greeted with smirking condescension by the political and media establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge Brand for a while, seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings winner with younger audiences. ..."
"... Then he overstepped the mark. ..."
"... Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was in fact so rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western democracy had become a charade. Elections were pointless . Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations. Political and media elites had been captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become irrelevant. ..."
"... But just as Brand's rejection of the old politics began to articulate a wider mood, it was stopped in its tracks. ..."
"... These "New Labour" MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people. ..."
"... It wasn't that Corbyn's election had shown Britain's political system was representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself vulnerable to a potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident. ..."
"... The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on the political and media establishments that exist to uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous "accident", such as his becoming prime minister. ..."
"... Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn would sound preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these media-constructed narratives. But almost all of us have been exposed to this kind of " brainwashing under freedom " since birth. ..."
"... The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired – not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the largest in Europe. ..."
"... As the establishment's need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate so has the nature of the attacks. ..."
In the preceding two years, it was hard to avoid on TV the figure of Russell Brand, a
comedian and minor film star who had reinvented himself, after years of battling addiction, as
a spiritual guru-cum-political revolutionary.
Brand's fast-talking, plain-speaking criticism of the existing political order, calling it
discredited, unaccountable and unrepresentative, was greeted with smirking condescension by the
political and media establishment. Nonetheless, in an era before Donald Trump had become
president of the United States, the British media were happy to indulge Brand for a while,
seemingly believing he or his ideas might prove a ratings winner with younger audiences.
But Brand started to look rather more impressive than anyone could have imagined. He took on
supposed media heavyweights like the BBC's Jeremy
Paxman and Channel 4's Jon
Snow and charmed and shamed them into submission – both with his compassion and his
thoughtful radicalism. Even in the gladiatorial-style battle of wits so beloved of modern TV,
he made these titans of the political interview look mediocre, shallow and out of touch. Videos
of these head-to-heads went viral, and Brand won hundreds of thousands of new followers.
Then he overstepped the mark.
Democracy as charade
Instead of simply criticising the political system, Brand argued that it was in fact so
rigged by the powerful, by corporate interests, that western democracy had become a charade.
Elections were pointless
. Our votes were simply a fig-leaf, concealing the fact that our political leaders were there
to represent not us but the interests of globe-spanning corporations. Political and media
elites had been captured by unshored corporate money. Our voices had become irrelevant.
Brand didn't just talk the talk. He started committing to direct action. He shamed our do-nothing
politicians and corporate media – the devastating Grenfell Tower fire had yet to happen
– by helping to gain attention for a group of poor tenants in London who were taking on
the might of a corporation that had become their landlord and wanted to evict them to develop
their homes for a much richer clientele. Brand's revolutionary words had turned into
revolutionary action.
But just as Brand's rejection of the old politics began to articulate a wider mood, it was
stopped in its tracks. After Corbyn was unexpectedly elected Labour leader, offering for the
first time in living memory a politics that listened to people before money, Brand's style of
rejectionism looked a little too cynical, or at least premature.
While Corbyn's victory marked a sea-change, it is worth recalling, however, that it occurred
only because of a mistake. Or perhaps two.
The Corbyn accident
First, a handful of Labour MPs agreed to nominate Corbyn for the leadership contest,
scraping him past the threshold needed to get on the ballot paper. Most backed him only because
they wanted to give the impression of an election that was fair and open. After his victory,
some loudly regretted having assisted him. None had
thought a representative of the tiny and besieged left wing of the parliamentary party stood a
chance of winning – not after Tony Blair and his acolytes had spent more than two decades
remaking Labour, using their own version of entryism to eradicate any vestiges of socialism in
the party. These "New Labour" MPs were there, just as Brand had noted, to represent the
interests of a corporate class, not ordinary people.
Corbyn had very different ideas from most of his colleagues. Over the years he had broken
with the consensus of the dominant Blairite faction time and again in parliamentary votes,
consistently taking a minority view that later proved to be on the
right side of history . He alone among the leadership contenders spoke unequivocally
against austerity, regarding it as a way to leech away more public money to enrich the
corporations and banks that had already pocketed vast sums from the public coffers – so
much so that by 2008 they had nearly bankrupted the entire western economic system.
And second, Corbyn won because of a recent change in the party's rulebook – one now
much regretted by party managers. A new internal balloting system gave more weight to the votes
of ordinary members than the parliamentary party. The members, unlike the party machine, wanted
Corbyn.
Corbyn's success didn't really prove Brand wrong. Even the best designed systems have flaws,
especially when the maintenance of the system's image as benevolent is considered vitally
important. It wasn't that Corbyn's election had shown Britain's political system was
representative and accountable. It was simply evidence that corporate power had made itself
vulnerable to a potential accident by preferring to work out of sight, in the shadows, to
maintain the illusion of democracy. Corbyn was that accident.
'Brainwashing under freedom'
Corbyn's success also wasn't evidence that the power structure he challenged had weakened.
The system was still in place and it still had a chokehold on the political and media
establishments that exist to uphold its interests. Which is why it has been mobilising these
forces endlessly to damage Corbyn and avert the risk of a further, even more disastrous
"accident", such as his becoming prime minister.
Listing the ways the state-corporate media have sought to undermine Corbyn would sound
preposterous to anyone not deeply immersed in these media-constructed narratives. But almost
all of us have been exposed to this kind of " brainwashing under freedom
" since birth.
The initial attacks on Corbyn were for being poorly dressed, sexist, unstatesmanlike, a
national security threat, a Communist spy – relentless, unsubstantiated smears the like
of which no other party leader had ever faced. But over time the allegations became even more
outrageously propagandistic as the campaign to undermine him not only failed but backfired
– not least, because Labour membership rocketed under Corbyn to make the party the
largest in Europe.
As the establishment's need to keep him away from power has grown more urgent and desperate
so has the nature of the attacks.
There were no Jews anywhere around most native Britons. And yet the Empire was banked most
importantly by Jews back to at least the post-Glorious Revolution closing the 17th century,
and that pattern of Jewish bankers being indispensable to the UK and the Brit WASP Empire
goes back to Oliver Cromwell.
"... As I documented on March 9 on this platform in my article " What Makes Gavin Run ?" Williamson knows no shame or integrity and is the living embodiment of the repulsive, two-faced backstabber, intriguer and liar Sammy Glick in the great writer Budd Schulberg's legendary 1941 novel of Hollywood "What Makes Sammy Run?" So he is a natural fit for Johnson, whose entire career has been dictated by similar shameless, reckless lies, opportunism and crass incompetence. ..."
"... According to many UK media reports – which Williamson understandably denies – his most effective weapons are bullying, bluster and threats. These are patterns of behavior which those who have worked for him or who have bothered following his career over the years find extremely convincing and in character (or, rather, lack of it). ..."
"... Putting Williamson in charge of such a delicate, nervously balanced and ultra-sensitive province is like appointing a Sith Lord as head of the Jedi Knights in "Star Wars" or putting the late Boston underworld mass murderer Whitey Bulger in charge of the FBI. ..."
"... Because like attracts like, competent honorable people in any country and culture seek to promote and advance others with the same qualities and empty, shallow sociopaths and confidence tricksters similarly admire and advance people exactly like themselves. ..."
As I documented on March 9 on this platform in my article "
What Makes Gavin Run ?" Williamson knows no shame or integrity and is the living embodiment
of the repulsive, two-faced backstabber, intriguer and liar Sammy Glick in the great writer
Budd Schulberg's legendary 1941 novel of Hollywood "What Makes Sammy Run?" So he is a natural
fit for Johnson, whose entire career has been dictated by similar shameless, reckless lies,
opportunism and crass incompetence.
No one gets every, or usually most, professional predictions right, and in the news business
sensible people make the best of their brilliant insights – or lucky guesses – when
they can. But I have seldom hit a hole-in-one prediction that came true as quickly as my column
on Williamson did.
On March 9, Williamson, after only a decade in the UK main chamber of parliament, the
ancient House of Commons was still riding high and making a fool of himself insulting major
nations from Russia to China and also the UK's badly-needed European allies as the most
incompetent defense chief in the modern history of his nation.
On May 1, less than two months after my article appeared – and with no causality that
I could see – Williamson was humiliatingly sacked by his benefactor, Prime Minister
Theresa May after being accused of leaking highly confidential national security information to
the media.
Williamson immediately turned on his long-time benefactor Mrs. May savagely and helped drive
her from office – which was admittedly long overdue. She resigned on June 7, just over a
single month after sacking him.
Williamson then joined May's arch-enemy, former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, who had
relentlessly schemed to topple her for years and joined Johnson's own campaign to win the
leadership of the rapidly disintegrating Conservative Party and thence become prime
minister.
At the time of writing, Johnson remains far in the lead in the contest to replace May as
prime minister despite repeated attacks on his character, utter lack of political consistency,
convictions or achievement and his entertainingly squalid private life.
Johnson is twice divorced with neither marriage lasting longer than five years and he is now
being accused of screaming rows with his 20-years-younger girl friend that may or may not have
involved him hitting her, which he naturally denies.
Through all this Williamson, who like Johnson himself does not lack for energy in the
service of his own ambition, has been rounding up support for his new master among Conservative
Party Members of Parliament.
According to many UK media reports – which Williamson understandably denies –
his most effective weapons are bullying, bluster and threats. These are patterns of behavior
which those who have worked for him or who have bothered following his career over the years
find extremely convincing and in character (or, rather, lack of it).
Reports are also circulating in the UK media – which are usually well-connected and
informed on such matters – that Williamson is holding out to be reappointed as the UK's
defense chief or as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is my native land and is tiny in size. But over the past century and more
it has repeatedly displayed an infinite capacity for generating wars, embarrassment and
catastrophe for both Ireland and the UK, which otherwise get along easily and well.
Putting Williamson in charge of such a delicate, nervously balanced and ultra-sensitive
province is like appointing a Sith Lord as head of the Jedi Knights in "Star Wars" or putting
the late Boston underworld mass murderer Whitey Bulger in charge of the FBI.
Therefore it will probably happen.
Because like attracts like, competent honorable people in any country and culture seek to
promote and advance others with the same qualities and empty, shallow sociopaths and confidence
tricksters similarly admire and advance people exactly like themselves.
On Monday, June 24, without mentioning Williamson once, one of the UK's most experienced and
respected journalists, war correspondents and historians, Sir Max Hastings wrote a scathing
article in the liberal "Guardian" newspaper entitled "I was Boris Johnson's boss: he is utterly
unfitted to be prime minister."
Therefore Johnson will re-elevate Williamson, either to drive Northern Ireland back into
civil war or destroy the remaining security of the entire UK as defense secretary once again.
And Williamson will remain loyal, until he in his turn sees the chance to stab Johnson in the
back and briefly rule as prime minister until he in his own turn is politically knifed and
toppled by one of his own hand-picked sociopaths.
And Sammy Glick will rise again – on the suffering and smashed lives of everyone
else.
"... And how many congresspeople served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many presidential candidates had boots on the ground in combat theaters? The answer is one. Here is the moral decay of America's ruling elites boiled down to a single word. ..."
And how many congresspeople served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many presidential
candidates had boots on the ground in combat theaters? The answer is one. Here is the moral
decay of America's ruling elites boiled down to a single word.
It didn't matter when they did. McStain fought, and absolutely LOVED war. Plenty of the
Hawks served and fought, it's like frat boys who were hazed, carrying on the hazing.
"... And how many congresspeople served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many presidential candidates had boots on the ground in combat theaters? The answer is one. Here is the moral decay of America's ruling elites boiled down to a single word. ..."
Here is the
moral decay of America's ruling elites
boiled down to a single
word.
There are many reasons why Imperial Rome declined, but two primary causes that get
relatively little attention are moral decay and soaring wealth inequality.
The two are of
course intimately connected: once the morals of the ruling Elites degrade,
what's mine is mine
and what's yours is mine, too.
I've previously covered two other key characteristics of an empire in terminal decline:
complacency and intellectual sclerosis, what I have termed a failure of imagination.
Michael Grant described these causes of decline in his excellent account
The
Fall of the Roman Empire
, a short book I have been recommending since 2009:
There was no room at all, in these ways of thinking, for the novel, apocalyptic situation
which had now arisen, a situation which needed solutions as radical as itself.
(The
Status Quo) attitude is a complacent acceptance of things as they are, without a single new
idea.
This acceptance was accompanied by greatly excessive optimism about the present and
future. Even when the end was only sixty years away, and the Empire was already crumbling fast,
Rutilius continued to address the spirit of Rome with the same supreme assurance.
This blind adherence to the ideas of the past ranks high among the principal
causes of the downfall of Rome.
If you were sufficiently lulled by these traditional
fictions, there was no call to take any practical first-aid measures at all.
Glenn Stehle, commenting on a thread in the excellent website
peakoilbarrel.com
(operated
by the estimable Ron Patterson) made a number of excellent points that I am taking the liberty of
excerpting: (with thanks to correspondent Paul S.)
The set of values developed by the early Romans called mos maiorum, Peter Turchin
explains in
War
and Peace and War: The Rise and Fall of Empires
, was gradually replaced by one of personal
greed and pursuit of self-interest.
"Probably the most important value was virtus (virtue), which derived from the
word vir (man) and embodied all the qualities of a true man as a member of society," explains
Turchin.
"Virtus included the ability to distinguish between good and evil and to act in ways that
promoted good, and especially the common good. Unlike Greeks, Romans did not stress individual
prowess, as exhibited by Homeric heroes or Olympic champions. The ideal of hero was one whose
courage, wisdom, and self-sacrifice saved his country in time of peril," Turchin adds.
And as Turchin goes on to explain:
"Unlike the selfish elites of the later periods, the aristocracy of the early Republic
did not spare its blood or treasure in the service of the common interest. When 50,000 Romans, a
staggering one fifth of Rome's total manpower, perished in the battle of Cannae, as mentioned
previously, the senate lost almost one third of its membership.
This suggests that the
senatorial aristocracy was more likely to be killed in wars than the average citizen...
The wealthy classes were also the first to volunteer extra taxes when they were needed A
graduated scale was used in which the senators paid the most, followed by the knights, and then
other citizens. In addition, officers and centurions (but not common soldiers!) served without
pay, saving the state 20 percent of the legion's payroll...
The richest 1 percent of the Romans during the early Republic was only 10 to 20
times as wealthy as an average Roman citizen."
Now compare that to the situation in Late Antiquity when
"an average Roman noble of senatorial class had property valued in the neighborhood of
20,000 Roman pounds of gold. There was no 'middle class' comparable to the small landholders of
the third century B.C.; the huge majority of the population was made up of landless peasants
working land that belonged to nobles. These peasants had hardly any property at all, but if we
estimate it (very generously) at one tenth of a pound of gold, the wealth differential would be
200,000! Inequality grew both as a result of the rich getting richer (late imperial senators
were 100 times wealthier than their Republican predecessors) and those of the middling wealth
becoming poor."
Do you see any similarities with the present-day realities depicted in these charts?
And how many congresspeople served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many
presidential candidates had boots on the ground in combat theaters? The answer is one.
Here
is the moral decay of America's ruling elites boiled down to a single word.
"... The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and international skepticism attests. ..."
"... Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown. ..."
"... Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something of an argument that began: ..."
"... He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out. Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf. They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share. Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. ..."
"... Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. ..."
"... There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were, they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack ..."
"... Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But he's not done with the disinformation exercise: ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification ..."
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based
on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the
area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in
the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US
government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible
investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike
Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media
ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo
and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and
international skepticism attests.
Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute
appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire
amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the
Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned
Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.
First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of
June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open
water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most
likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the
UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked
by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported
distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either
attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by
ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an
Iranian port.
Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to
the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.
Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who
made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something
of an argument that began:
This assessment is based on intelligence .
He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence
assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out.
Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf.
They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share.
Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had
a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that
Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first
claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US
doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had
operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After intelligence, Pompeo continued:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .
Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used
torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to
the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any
actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation
The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers
does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do
the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake
in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with
which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an
interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be
the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .
There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were,
they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six
examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019,
attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational
investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN
Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical
suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.
Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old
threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by
the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an
unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But
he's not done with the disinformation exercise:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high
degree of sophistication.
The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed"
mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could
know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word
garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence
necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:
Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace
and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of
escalating tension by Iran.
The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its
allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when
the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do
in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a
campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the
multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran
continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors
confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation,
which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them
into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its
promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US
threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.
Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming
they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has
observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long
record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other
rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how
implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:
40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin –
they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then
they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all
proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's
worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal,
including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of
"unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No
wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.
The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have
objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace
with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now.
Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in
forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president
from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war
with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a
whole new set of war crimes.
Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good
reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear
weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case
for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing
Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to
a nation that believes its lies to itself.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism,
and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from
Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first
published in Reader Supported
News . Read
other articles by William .
"... Jeffrey Epstein's story is similarly abusive. The convicted sex offender prostituted dozens of underage girls and should have spent the rest of his life in jail. Again this is no 'one-off' abuse of an underage child, he was a serial sex predator. ..."
"... According to Joseph Recarey, the lead Palm Beach detective on the case, Epstein was essentially operating a "sexual pyramid scheme." ..."
"... The Vox writes that the girls and women who reported abuse by Epstein, meanwhile, were markedly powerless. Most of them "came from disadvantaged families, single-parent homes or foster care, Many of the girls were one step away from homelessness." ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's story is similarly abusive. The convicted sex offender prostituted dozens of underage girls and should have
spent the rest of his life in jail. Again this is no 'one-off'
abuse of an underage child, he was a serial sex predator.
According to Joseph Recarey, the lead Palm Beach detective on the case, Epstein was essentially operating a "sexual pyramid scheme."
The Vox
writes that the girls and women who reported abuse by Epstein, meanwhile, were markedly powerless. Most of them "came from disadvantaged
families, single-parent homes or foster care, Many of the girls were one step away from homelessness."
In November 2017 the genius comedian Larry David was criticized in the
Jewish press for admitting on Saturday Night Live that many of those
accused of sexual harassment in Hollywood are Jewish.
... Alan Dershowitz , who was a member
of Epstein's legal team and was later accused by one of the victims' lawyers of himself participating in the
sex trafficking ring .
Western News Agencies Mistranslate Iran's President Speech - It Is Not The First Time
Such 'Error' HappensJOHN CHUCKMAN , Jun 26, 2019 2:10:12
PM |
23
Yesterday the news agencies Associated Press and Reuters mistranslated a
speech by Iran's President Hassan Rouhani. They made it sound as if Rouhani insulted U.S.
President Donald Trump as 'mentally retarded'. Rouhani never said that.
Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesday that Israel must be
"wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press
agency reported.
...
Referring to comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution,
Ahmadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
Ever since he spoke at an anti-Zionism conference in Tehran last October, President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad of Iran has been known for one statement above all. As translated by news
agencies at the time, it was that Israel "should be wiped off the map." Iran's nuclear
program and sponsorship of militant Muslim groups are rarely mentioned without reference to
the infamous map remark.
Here, for example, is R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political
affairs, recently: "Given the radical nature of Iran under Ahmadinejad and its stated wish
to wipe Israel off the map of the world, it is entirely unconvincing that we could or
should live with a nuclear Iran."
"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom
exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of
Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was
misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying
Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for
over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."
Jonathan Steele, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in London, recently
laid out the case this way: "The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by
Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying
Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,' just as the Shah's regime in Iran had
vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation
of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The 'page of time' phrase suggests he did not
expect it to happen soon."
Despite the above
and other explanations the false "wipe Israel off the map" translation never died. Years
later it still reappeared in Guardian pieces which required it to issuemultiple
corrections and clarifications.
Now, as the Trump administration is pushing for war on Iran, a similar mistranslation
miraculously happened. It were again 'western' news agencies who lightened the fire:
A lot of Western media is reporting that Iranian President Rouhani called Trump
"mentally retarded." This is inaccurate.
Regarding Trump, he just said "no wise person would take such an action [the new sanctions
imposed]."
Absolutely incorrect. There is a word for "retarded" in Persian & Rouhani didn't use
it. Prior to him saying "mental disability" he even prefaced his comment by saying "mental
weakness." Those who speak Persian can listen & judge for themselves. Here is a video
clip of Rouhani's comment: link
Iran leadership doesn't understand the words "nice" or "compassion," they never have.
Sadly, the thing they do understand is Strength and Power, and the USA is by far the most
powerful Military Force in the world, with 1.5 Trillion Dollars invested over the last two
years alone..
....The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their
leadership spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The U.S. has not
forgotten Iran's use of IED's & EFP's (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded
many more...
.... Iran's very ignorant and insulting statement , put out today, only shows that they
do not understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great
and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John
Kerry & Obama!
Reuters , which also peddled the mistranslation, gleefully
connected the dots :
This follows in the footsteps of a rich history of mistranslating and obfuscating which is
rarely, if ever, corrected by our Guardians of Truth. I will not hold my breath for AP to
pull its tweet out issue any sort of correction. The war machine is revving up, truth be
damned.
To add a few obfuscations to the list of mistranslations: the Palestinian intifada. Sounds
scary, no? Violence against the benevolent Israelis. Because what does intifada actually
mean? Uprising, which by its nature suggests oppression, something which just 'can't' be
happening in Palestine, hence the need for intifada.
Or take jihad, 'a pillor' of Islam. Again, very scary, as jihad 'means' suicide bombs and
killing infidels. What the Guardians of Truth never mention is that jihad in Islam is a very,
very broad term that includes such things as helping the poor or less fortunate, educating
oneself, quiet reflection, and prayer. Jihad as meaning 'holy war' was a sense meaning
derived much later than the founding of the religion, as a reaction to very real threats to
believers of the time, the Crusades and Mongol invasions. That this specific sense meaning
was essentially confined to history afterward, only to be revived by Wahhabists and takfiris,
and one not believed in by the vast majority of Muslims, is never explained. 'Cause all them
crazy Muslims believe in jihad!
In all cases where the boogeyman of the day needs concocting, rest assured the
'mainstream' press, with AP in the lead, will be there to build a gleaming edifice mistruths,
omissions, and lies.
In approximately 17 months, the american public can make strides to fix this mess.
I guess that is a long time for the iranians, but still maybe best option.
Just in case there is any doubt in American minds here is the Israeli Ambassador to the UN.
He thinks the sanctions are working well. Iran is panicking.
They mistranslate Trump all the time, or they spin what he says. It is amazing to watch.
For instance, at the Helsinki meeting, where he met with Putin and they discussed multiple
topics, but the press ignored any topic but demanding that Trump denounce Putin and "admit"
that Putin helped him steal the election, and that he was therefore not the legitimate
president.
Obviously, Trump was not going to say that, so he said that he was the legitimate
president, and the mockingbird media spun that into "the president is a traitor to America
because he said that 17 national intelligence agencies are lying".
.....The ministers lie, the professors lie, the television lies,
the priests lie .
These lies mean that the country wants to die.
Lie after lie starts out into the prairie grass,
like enormous caravans of Conestoga wagons .
And a long desire for death flows out, guiding the
enormous caravans from beneath,
stringing together the vague and foolish words.
It is a desire to eat death,
to gobble it down,
to rush on it like a cobra with mouth open
It's a desire to take death inside,
to feel it burning inside, pushing out velvety hairs,
like a clothes brush in the intestines --
This is the thrill that leads the President on to lie....
Robert Bly, The Teeth Mother Naked at Last, originally published by City Lights books
1970
Maybe the translation is inacurate but the message had the expected reaction from Trump:
Tweet furor.
It is good that Trump realizes that he does not have the monopole of insulting leaders.
The USA is a country that since WWII has never won any war. How could it give a lesson to
Iran who won a 8 years war against Iraq despite the support that the USA, the Gulf countries
and Western countries gave to Iraq.
Loud noise and indecisive actions: The disaster of the USA foreign policy
I remember watching CNN translate Khamenei's "Nuclear Power" to "Nuclear Weapons" right on
live TV in 2013. This is not new.
/div> Virgile "The USA is a country that since WWII has never won any war".
The US won a war against Grenada [population 95,000] I would go so far as to say they whupped
ass. True there were only 64 Cuban soldiers there [security guards] All members of the US armed
forces were involved and 5,000 medals were given out. Ra Ra USA.
Posted by: Harry Law , Jun 26, 2019 5:29:37 PM |
50
Virgile "The USA is a country that since WWII has never won any war". The US won a war
against Grenada [population 95,000] I would go so far as to say they whupped ass. True there
were only 64 Cuban soldiers there [security guards] All members of the US armed forces were
involved and 5,000 medals were given out. Ra Ra USA.
Posted by: Harry Law | Jun 26, 2019 5:29:37 PM |
50
b-
I am a Persian speaker and is true that president Rouhani never said Trump is retarded, we
now have way passed the point that insults can matte. Nevertheless it was better if President
Rouhani would have called Trump and the rest of the ruling US regime like what the whole
world has now come to understand, a true and unique collection of retards on a shining hill.
Reminds me of when Nikita Khruschev attempted to explain in 1956 his view that that
capitalism would destroy itself from within by quoting Marx: "What the bourgeoisie therefore
produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers." This was notoriously
mistranslated into English as "We will bury you", as if the Soviets were out to kill all
westerners themselves. Of course this mistranslated was quoted time and time again in western
media, fueling Cold War paranoia for years to come.
blue @ 19 The news media are wedded to the state which is wedded to the banking system which
are all subsidiaries of global capitalism. They don't need to correct themselves. They may
have the occasional family feud, but they're all on the same team. They will admit to
"mistakes" being made, but only long after it makes no difference.
We have a FREE PRESS in America-Pravda on the Potomac, Izvestia on the Hudson.
Have a look sometime at the Venn Diagrams that portray the overlapping/interlocking
memberships of the regulatory/financial/corporate leadership class.
But more than that, whatever the idea of a free press once meant, with the rise of digital
corporate networking "platforms", not subject to any accountability, the barriers to entry of
any competing narratives to the mainstream discourse are nearly insurmountable. Except maybe
through subversion?
What is missing is a true public 'Marketplace of Ideas'
The deliberate mis-translations of non-english speaking "adversaries" of the US is common in
the msm. Putin is frequently and deliberately mis-translated to make him appear dictatorial
and aggressive.
I listened to Rohani's speech. He said that if JCPOA is bad, it is bad for all parties; and
if it is good, it is good for all parties. They cannot expect for JCPOA to be bad for them
and good for us. They withdrew from the JCPOA and expect us to stay with the agreement. This
is what he meant when he said: White house has been affected by mental inability and mental
disability.
ADKC
Iran is at war. US and gang are trying to destroy Iran as a nation. The biggest asset in
times of war is deception. Used by both the attacker and the attacked.
Khamenei
has Tweeted a series of tweets, and his scribe has posted what he tweeted along with
other words
at his website in English so there's no mistranslation. Here's one of the series of 6:
"The graceful Iranian nation has been accused & insulted by world's most vicious
regime, the U.S., which is a source of wars, conflicts & plunder. Iranian nation won't
give up over such insults. Iranians have been wronged by oppressive sanctions but not
weakened & remain powerful."
They were made 14+ hours ago, yet I'm the first to post notice of them here?!
The USA government excels at propaganda. It always has. Doesn't matter if it babies and
incubators, mistranslated leaders of targeted countries, or supposed mass graves. BTW... what
ever happened to all those mass graves in Iraq? HRW was going to dig them all up and document
them. Hundreds of thousands. Most Americans I talk to still believe in this. Was it true?
Saddam himself had claimed it wasn't true. That it was Kurdish propaganda to gain sympathy.
He claimed the Anfal campaign was only to push the Kurds off the border so he could control
arms smuggling and that casualties were minimal. Looking into the search. They are graves
with a few hundred here and there but where are the rest of the bodies? If you google Iraq
mass graves there are more articles about ISIS mass graves than the Anfal campaign. There
were people killed in the South during the Shia uprising after the first gulf war than there
was for the Anfal campaign. Was that a lie too? Nearly every American believes it still.
PM admits graves claim 'untrue'
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that
'400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses
have so far been uncovered.
The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence,
quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet
on Iraq's mass graves.
In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US
government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've
already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'
Anyone who can undestand Farsi ( Persian language) can litsen Rouhani's speech. He did not
name "Trump", he said " White House".
I have been watching CNN news channel who said that Rouhani made a personal attack on Trump!
That was not true.
There was no personal attack on Rouhani's speech.
Importantly, the context of the speech and conclusion is diffent from western media reports
and western translations.
I would like give few links of some Iranian news agencies, reporting Rouhani's speech for
International use, as reference here:
1) FrasNews Agency
Rouhani said:
"These days, we see the White House in confusion and we are witnessing undue and
ridiculous words and adoption of a scandalous policy,"
..."The US sanctions are crime against humanity. The US recent measures indicate their
ultimate failure. The new US measures are the result of their frustration and confusion over
Iran. The White House has mental disability,"
Le président iranien, affirmant que les États-Unis, malgré de
nombreuses tentatives de pression exercées par divers leviers sur l'Iran, ont
échoué dans leurs objectifs, a poursuivi : "Une étrange frustration et
une grande confusion règnent au sein du Corps dirigeant de la Maison Blanche. Ils se
sentent déçus car ils n'ont obtenu aucun résultat, ils s'attendaient
à voir l'Iran brisé dans l'espace de quelques mois, mais ils ont fini par
constater que les Iraniens agissent de plus en plus fermement, de manière plus
créative que jamais ".
The president also decried the new US sanctions against Iran, saying the White House has
been thrown into confusion as its officials are making "inappropriate and ridiculous"
comments and adopting the policy of disgrace.
Wow that's amazing! Probably the best known Khrushchev 'quote', presented as evidence of
his boorish nature, is an intentional mistranslation. And the Marx quote is not exactly
obscure, it's from Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto for eff sake! At least it makes a
change from the 'lets just make things up' cottage industry of Lenin & Stalin
'quotes'.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its
shoes."
Mark Twain (or some other student of wisdom)
... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/books/famous-misquotations.html
Apr 26, 2017 - Mark Twain is one of many who gets credit for famous quotations he never wrote
or said. ... credited with saying "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth
is still putting on its shoes" ... Proverbial wisdom, in which a quotation is elevated to the
status of a proverb because its source is unknown;.
Circe , Jun 27, 2019 10:19:52 AM |
136Noirette , Jun 27, 2019 10:50:17 AM |
137
Mistranslations are a classical cheap n easy way to sway opinion.
Interesting that the examples b quotes, and most of those promoted currently by the
US-uk-eu, afaik, understand, are intended to project into the voice of Iranians, Russians,
Syrians, utterances, declarations, to be labelled insults, slander, threats, impropriety,
even rage, coming from these parties, as
there is nothing much else to display!
(Spanish is too comprehensible > does not apply to Mexico, Cuba, S. America.)
Often cultural matters play a role, but are ignored. Ahmadinejad was endlessly vilified
and mocked by the W-MSM for saying what was translated as there are no homosexuals in
Iran (no idea what the original formulation was) - which 'obviously' can't be 'true.'
Besides homosexuality being unacceptable in conservative rule-books, Iran is, or was (to
2010) above (or with) Thailand the no. 1. practitioner / destination for sex change
operations. Iran had super educated docs, great hospitals, etc.
Ahmadinejad was relying on a kind of fundamentalist principle where the 'soul' or the
'essential quality' of a person is what is tantamount, what counts above all. The physical
manifestation, here the human body, can be transformed to be in harmony with the deep-felt or
'innately' ascribed orientation or 'spirit.' So, no homosexuals in Iran, or only a few who
are in 'transition.' (Not denying real suffering of gays in Iran, other story.)
The W, in first place the US, is doing precisely the same with its 'gender change'
promotion, as applied to children and young teens. Here too, 'feelings' and 'identity'
override 'nature' : the physical can be overturned, overcome, fixed.
Such cultural issues play a role in mis-translations, deliberate or not. It may appear
that I wandered far off topic, I just picked a topical comprehensible ex. Sharia law is more
complex..
It's no wonder the US is so screwed up these days. Somehow the NeoCons, before and after
stealing the 2,000 election for Bush, with the help of abundance of Liars 4 Hire think tanks
like CATO, CEI, AEI, Heritage Foundation blah, blah, blah, bankrolled by the likes of the
Koch Bros, The Scaifes, Exxon, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont the Nuke Industry etc. were, and are
still able to convince low intelligence people that wrong is right, bad is good, meanness is
"compassion" and abuse is "tough love".
But it only works if those being duped are already predisposed to hateful philosophy, and
that they got in spades with careful conditioning (brainwashing) from bastards like Rush
Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch, people with no moral scruples whatsoever.
Thus the right today (actually for a long while now) is no more than a collection of
racists and bigots, pathological liars and scammers, charlatans and greedmeisters.
It's why they care nothing for the poor, nothing for protection the environment, nothing
for anyone or anything but themselves. They are the cult of mean.
As former right-wing operative Allen Raymond famously said: "this is not about morality,
this is about winning"
Only the greedy, selfish, well off, egotistical and share holders believe that Public
Services should, could and would benefit from privatisation and deregulation.
Education and Health for example are (in theory) a universal right in the UK. As numbers
in the population rise and demographics change so do costs ie delivery of the service becomes
more expensive.As market force logic is introduced it also becomes less responsive - hence
people not able to get the right drugs and treatment and challenging and challenged young
people being denied an education that is vital for them in increasing numbers.
Meanwhile - as Public Services are devalued and denuded in this system the private sector
becomes increasingly wealthy at the top while its workers become poorer and less powerful at
the bottom.
With the introduction of Tory austerity which punishes the latter to the benefit of the
former there is no surprise that this system does not work and has provided a platform for
the unscrupulous greedy and corrupt to exploit Brexit and produce conditions which will take
'Neoliberalism' to where logic suggests it would always go - with the powerful rich protected
minority exerting their power over an increasingly poor and powerless majority.
The competitive tender approach ensures the cheapest bids get the contracts and the cheapest
bids are those most likely to employ exploited labour and cheap materials as well as cutting
corners. Result? a job of sorts gets done, but the quality is rubbish, with no investment or
pride in the product. Look at Hong Kong where this is longstanding practice: new tunnel, half
the extractor fans do not work correctly because they were poorly installed. I once spoke to
the Chief Engineer of the Tsing Ma bridge, he was stressed out of his socks for the whole
construction period trying to monitor all the subcontractors who had bid so low they had to
cheat to make a profit with the result that they would try to cut corners and avoid doing
things if they thought they could get away with it. Good job that engineer was diligent.
Others may be less able or willing.
BTW: I seldom find comparisons in UK-media to other countries when those countries are
better.
I think that's because most of the UK media is propaganda for the established system,
which they rely on for advertising revenue and access to information. If an outlet's
journalists start seriously questioning the existing system, a few things happen: 1.
the journo doesn't get promoted within the system; 2. their access to information is
curtailed (they are not invited to briefings etc., and; 3. advertising revenue drops. As the
business model of most mainstream media is to present consumer audiences to advertisers, this
is not going to sit well with the owners, see 1 and 2 above leading to poor evaluations. Any
journo with half a brain quickly learns this and fits in. Only so far and no further.
As a Tory for most of my longish life, I have to agree that whilst some things have
flourished once privatised, certain services must remain in public ownership and control to
enable governments to improve or reduce, depending on national taxation and expenditure - if
people want better services then they must be prepared to pay for them, and of course the
long-term pensions of the workforce. Managers should be subject matter experts before running
departments, not just accountants or management consultants, so they can improve delivery not
just constantly re-structure or carp on about 'efficiency savings'.
Having worked in shipping, that industry has oscillated several times but rail is an
interesting example - a disaster in the dying days of national ownership, the private world
started well improving safety, reliability and capacity but has gone downhill in recent
years, not helped by the track management system. Again, the airlines started well but now
several have gone into administration and BA has 'down-qualitied' itself to become one of the
worst.
Some parts of the NHS can be provided by private industry but limited to service provision
and collective buying only - certainly NOT cancer screening.
Then, when you look at private providers who go bust and completely fail to provide any
acceptable capability - jails, probation, social care etc. one wonders when, if ever,
politicians will realise that it costs them, the civil service and commercial management an
incredible amount of time, effort and cost just to fail!
Outsourcing government work is the most inefficient way of getting it done for the benefit of
taxpayers. When the profits private companies make from it are added to what economies must
invest to pay the taxes for it it's astonishing how popular it has become throughout the
world, something only explicable if those authorising it are amongst the most stupid of
financial administrators or the most corrupt.
Outsourcing for example £1m worth of work requires that amount to be paid in taxes,
which needs about £5m to be earned in wages and profits to pay £1m in taxes,
which in turn needs an investment of perhaps ten times that amount, when the £1m is
borrowed by debt laden governments to be repaid by over-borrowed and overtaxed economies.
If the outsourced company is not profit-making it will borrow the capital to be able to
deliver what's required and that in turn will raise the amount it will want for future work,
which is what I think accounts for Carillion and the other outsource giants going to the
wall.
The process is generally the fault of governments failing to adhere strictly to the necessity
of only paying its workforce on average the same as the private sector pays its workers,
which in democracies is not an unfair requirement demanded by equality legislation. Many
would claim that such was why Margaret Thatcher decided on privatising so many public
utilities especially after the miners' strike in Ted Heath's government and why it gained so
much support and popularity when wages and benefits for similar skill levels seemed so much
better and jobs more secure for many public sector workers involved than they were in the
private sector. Now of course, the high costs of private necessary public services are making
life unbearable for the majority of workers and welfare recipients while profits are going
abroad to those who own them and the EU in getting the flak – courtesy of the media -
for the resultant poverty and austerity, allowed the false £350m a week to win the
referendum. The £4 billion a week worth of exports to the EU paid most of that and the
way companies are relocating to hedge against Brexit means a lot of lost jobs will go with
them – some earlier estimates but it at more than 100,000 - which doesn't seem to deter
those determinedly wanting out of the EU one little bit.
This is a blessing for the low labour cost Member States, who being in the populous markets
the multinationals need, can attract the UK industries looking to further cut costs and
freight charges so those that go will never come back because higher costs in the Brexit UK
will not be compensated for easily with uncompetitive price hikes for EU customers, unlike
CAP payments that have been promised to farmers by the government proBrexit Minister.
The doom and gloom felt by many I think is well justified when sovereign debt and bank credit
is considered relative to taxes. While sovereign debt is regarded as an asset and future
taxes are acceptable for bank credit and both can be securitized by banking systems to borrow
even more capital that will be acceptable to central banks as QE, it's not surprising that
sovereigns don't need to worry about economies being unable to provide the taxes their
governments unlawfully spend even when leaving it for future generations is also unlawful
i.e. is a crime, since if they don't, their central banks and bond holders covered by them
will. When the cost in trillions since 2016 already spent by government in preparing for
Brexit is included one can't help but think that the financial economy has made a proverbial
killing from UK incorporated and now owns most if not all of it. If most of the finance for
Brexit came from its financiers and investors is it possible that after Brexit they'll pour
trillions back into the economy to make it capable of not only surviving but also competing
favourably with the EU, Japan, China, and the US?
I have to disagree. Hardly anything has flourished after privatisation. The big failures,
which get all the publicity, were generally basket case private businesses which had to be
nationalised to save them from collapse.
Sometimes they are stuffed with public money and
sold at a loss to the public, like the Tory nationalisation of Rolls Royce, or deprived of
funds like British Rail to provide an excuse to liberate thousands of square miles of real
estate
This latter is the scheme for the NHS with hospitals and other property provided at
great public expense sold off to any shark who says he has the money, and once it's private
load the enterprise with debt and walk away.
Unlike the privatisations of the 80s and 90s there's barely any pretence these days
that new sell-offs are anything more than simply part of a quest to find new avenues for
profit-making in an economy with tons of liquid capital but not enough places to profitability
put it.
Back in the Thatcher/Reagan years there were at people around who genuinely believed in the
superiority of the market, or at least, made the effort to set out an intellectual case for
it.
Now we're in a different era. After 2008, hardly anyone really believes in neoliberal
ideas anymore, not to the point that they'd openly make the case for them anyway. But while
different visions have appeared to some extent on both left and right, most of those in
positions of power and influence have so internalised Thatcher's 'there is no alternative'
that it's beyond their political horizons to treat any alternatives which do emerge as
serious propositions, let alone come up with their own.
So neoliberalism stumbles on almost as a reflex action. Ben Fine calls it a 'zombie' but I
think the better analogy is cannibalism. Unlike the privatisations of the 80s and 90s there's
barely any pretence these days that new sell-offs are anything more than simply part of a
quest to find new avenues for profit-making in an economy with tons of liquid capital but not
enough places to profitability put it. Because structurally speaking most of the economy is
tapped out.
Privatising public services at this point is just a way to asset strip and/or funnel
public revenue streams to a private sector which has been stuck in neoliberal short-term, low
skill, low productivity, low wage, high debt mode for so long that it has lost the ability to
grow. So now it is eating itself, or at least eating the structures which hold it up and
allow it to survive.
The central premise used by Governments for privatising public servcies seems to have been
that publicly run services are inefficient compared to private companies; that the need to
turn a profit means wasteful systems and behaviours are minimised. Therefore, money can be
saved by outsourcing as private companies can provide the same or better service more
cheaply.
I think this is very disrespectful to all those who work in public service, many of whom
are dedicated to their jobs to provide care or a good service to members of the public. The
idea that making money is the only motivating force that can make someone do their job well
seems flawed. Further, if efficiency gains alone are not enough to make a profit, then the
only recourse for companies is to provide a poorer service or be more exploitative of their
employees, which is regularly played out.
This central premise is not widely challenged by politicians. It seems accepted as fact. I
wonder if there have been any studies to either support or challenge this idea.
"... "the administrator uses social science the way the drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination." Scholars' disinclination to be used in this way helps explain more of the distance. ..."
The evidence suggests that foreign policymakers do not seek insight from scholars, but
rather support for what they already want to do.
As Desch quotes a World War II U.S. Navy anthropologist, "the administrator uses social
science the way the drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination." Scholars'
disinclination to be used in this way helps explain more of the distance.
Portland, OR -- A former top level Walt Disney executive was sentenced to prison this month
for nearly seven years for child rape. Michael Laney, 73, who was the Vice President of Walt
Disney was found guilty of four counts of first-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to 81 months
in prison.
After the sentencing, Laney's attorneys pleaded with the judge to suspend the sentence,
claiming that Laney's wife would suffer if her husband goes to jail.
According to
Oregon Live
, Laney's wife's doctor, Blain Crandell, submitted a letter on Laney's behalf,
saying his wife "could be expected to suffer serious consequences to her health and well-being"
without an in-home caregiver, a role her husband had been filling.
Thankfully, the judge and district attorney did not see it that way. In response to this
request, Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Charles Mickley called the claims
"peculiarly offensive and insulting."
"Defendant wholly ignores the compelling evidence of his guilt presented at trial, including
the evidence of his longstanding sexual interest in children," Mickley wrote.
Laney will also have to serve an additional 120 months of probation after prison, pay a
$4,000 fine, and register as a sex offender.
Matt Agorist
Matt Agorist
is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked
by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government
corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a
decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the
Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project.
Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter
,
Steemit
, and now on
Minds.
PurpleCarrot
8h
Pedophilia is the link between all these Hollyweird freaks and politics as well. I
believe they are all lured into being compromised and dirt kept on them all collectively,
in order to use them and manipulate them and gain control over society.
"... The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid. ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it. ..."
"... This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies. ..."
"... Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag". ..."
"... As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that. ..."
"... If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual? ..."
"... The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation. The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency. ..."
"... But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp. ..."
The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack
a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in
https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions
were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most
powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid.
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far
fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it.
This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they
are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies.
You mean "Mr. We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole"? What a disgraceful character...
pic.twitter.com/pMtAgKaZcG
Then there are the many problems of their "proof".
Where is the video of the Iranians PLACING explosives & detonating them? Removal would be prudent by any Navy/CG. Also location
of explosives is VERY high off waterline ...Weird. It's not a limpet mine, it's a demo charge. Had to be put on by fairly high
boat w/ a long gaff/pole https://t.co/3qzB7TrrYv
The distress call went out at 6 am. So, according to CENTCOM's analysis of this video, they're suggesting that 10 hours after
the tanker was hit, the IRGC just casually pulled up to the tanker to remove unexploded limpet mine in broad daylight?!
The Japanese company that owns the ship has refused to cooperate in this
false flag mission.
But in remarks to Japanese media, the president of the company that owns the ship said the vessel wasn't damaged by a mine. "A
mine doesn't damage a ship above sea level," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the vessel.
"We aren't sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship," he said.
Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag".
Finally, there is the question of "why"?
What would Iran hope to accomplish by this? I found one
establishment source that tried to rationalize.
Iran denied responsibility, with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif descending to bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag
operation by Israel's Mossad.
If you're not inclined to believe the Trump administration – and such skepticism is entirely reasonable – most detectives would
still tell you that the most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime.
To those seeking logic behind the attacks, though, it may be hard to see why Iran would do this – but that assumes that the
regime in Tehran is a rational actor.
The Gulf of Oman attacks are especially hard to explain: targeting Japanese shipping on the very day that Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe was meeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on a well-publicized peace mission would seem extraordinarily counterproductive, even
for a regime with an almost fanatical commitment to self-harm.
Have you ever noticed that everyone that we want to start a war with is crazy? Regimes that stand solid for generations under
hostile conditions are always run by maniacs. You'd think that insanity would prevent them from taking power in the first place,
but that seems to only be true with our allies.
As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories
involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that.
Since the U.S.'s tightening of sanctions has squeezed Iranian oil exports, nobody else's should be allowed to pass through
waters within reach of the IRGC.
The Iranians know that these threats, if repeated, can lose their power if not followed with action. The attacks on the tankers,
then, can be explained as a demonstration that Khamenei's attack dogs have some teeth.
There is another rationale. If Iran does eventually agree to negotiate with the U.S., it will want to bring some bargaining
chips to the table – something it can exchange for the removal of sanctions. In the negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran
was able to offer the suspension of its nuclear program. It doesn't have that particular chip now, although Tehran has recently
threatened to crank up the centrifuges again.
Meanwhile, the regime may have calculated that the only way to secure some kind of negotiating position is blackmail: End the
sanctions, or we take out some more tankers, and send oil prices surging.
This almost sounds logical, except for one thing: Iran tried that in 1988 and it didn't work. It only caused the one thing the
U.S. was itching for: to kill some Iranians.
Do you think that they've forgotten? Or that the U.S. is less warlike? Oh wait. Iranians are crazy and can't be reasoned with, amirite?
US public radio @NPR does not mention it was Iranians
who saved the crew. That's how terrible they are at journalism
-- boomerWithaLandline (@Irene34799239)
June 14, 2019
The only real question is, why such a transparent lie? Has the ruling elite gotten lazy or stupid? Or do they think that we are
that lazy and stupid? I have an alternative
theory .
For the last two years, as you've probably noticed, the corporate media have been not so subtly alternating between manufacturing
Russia hysteria and Nazi hysteria, and sometimes whipping up both at once. Thus, I've dubbed the new Official Enemy of Freedom
"the Putin-Nazis." They don't really make any sense, rationally, but let's not get all hung up on that. Official enemies don't
have to make sense. The important thing is, they're coming to get us, and to kill the Jews and destroy democracy and something
about Stalin, if memory serves. Putin is their leader, of course. Trump is his diabolical puppet. Julian Assange is well, Goebbels,
or something. Glenn Greenwald is also on the payroll, as are countless "useful idiots" like myself, whose job it is to sow division,
discord, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, anti-Hillaryism, collusion rejectionism, ontological skepticism, and any other
horrible thing you can think of.
Their bullsh*t lies have gotten lazy and stupid because real effort isn't required to start a war and kill a lot of people.
That is the question, I ask thee? If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo,
Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual?
The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation.
The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible
weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency.
My money, the little that I have, is on either the Saudis or the Israelis; maybe even both.
But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but
this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp.
The system is broken, and the managerial elite will keep it broken because it serves
their interests to keep it broken.
America's managerial elite came to do good and stayed to do well--at the expense of
everyone beneath them. Now that they've entrenched themselves at the top of the status quo,
there's no way to dislodge them, even as their failure to address what's broken, much less
actually fix what's broken, insures systemic breakdown.
In government, the managerial elite is known as The Deep State : those who
remain in power regardless of who's in elected office. In local government, managerial elites
often shift positions, moving from elected office to a plum position in the bureaucracy where
they can draw a big paycheck out of sight until they retire.
In Corporate America, managerial elites also move around, leaving sinking ships (that they
may well have helped sink) as needed, and moving to think tanks or academia if their failures
start multiplying.
Changing elected officials does nothing to dislodge our managerial elite overlords.
The new mayor, governor or president comes and goes, and all the major institutions--education,
higher education, healthcare, national defense, critical infrastructure--continue down the same
path of enriching entrenched insiders while the institution fails its core missions.
If you think this chart of soaring student loan debt is a sign of "success," you are 1)
delusional 2) protected from the dire consequences of this failure 3) getting your paycheck
from this failed system. That in a nutshell is the state of the nation: those who are
protected from the consequences of failure are loyal to the Establishment, as are the millions
drawing a paycheck from systems they know are irredeemable failures.
Let's review the central institutions of the nation:
Healthcare: a failed system doomed to bankrupt the nation.
Defense: a failed system of cartels and Pentagon fiefdoms that have saddled the nation
with enormously costly failed weapons systems like the F-35 and the LCS.
Foreign policy: Iraq: a disaster. Afghanistan: a disaster. Libya: a disaster. Syria: a
disaster. Need I go on?
Political governance: a corrupt system of self-serving elites, lobbyists, pay-to-play,
corporate puppet-masters, and sociopaths who see themselves as above the law.
The sole output of America's managerial elite is self-serving hubris.
In an open market, failed leadership has consequences. Customers vanish and the
enterprise goes bankrupt, or shareholders and employees rally to fire the failed
leadership.
In our state-cartel system, failed leadership only tightens its grip on the nation's
throat. The Deep State can't be fired, nor does it ever stand for election. The two
political parties are interchangeable, as are the politicos who race from fund-raiser to
fund-raiser.
It's tempting to blame the individuals who inhale the wealth and power of our failed
system, but it's the system, not the individuals , though a more corrupt, craven,
self-serving lot cannot easily be assembled.
Centralized hierarchies concentrate power at the top of the pyramid. That power is a
magnet for everyone who seeks to wield power and enrich themselves in the process.
In the financial system, this concentration of power is visible in the chart below: the
super-rich have become immensely richer in the past few decades of central banks' vast
expansion of credit and financialization.
As systems become more complex, the need for a professional class to manage the
overwhelming complexity grows. This class excels at appearing to manage complexity while
ignoring the larger dynamics driving the system over the cliff.
And so we have endless meetings of highly paid people over trivial issues while the entire
system careens toward meltdown. "Stakeholders" multiply in endless profusion, dooming every
project to a glacial process that increases the sums paid to manage the glacial process and
pushes the final cost to the moon.
The self-serving managerial elite always has one answer for every problem: give us more
money. If the budget expands by 10% and nothing actually changes for the better, then the
"solution" is a 25% increase in funding.
Budgets expand by leaps and bounds, but none of the systemic problems are ever resolved.
It's not hard to figure out why: look at the system's incentives. If systems were
radically simplified and made more efficient, the need for an ever-expanding class of permanent
managers would diminish. And so the solution is always more fodder for the managerial elite:
more complexity, more meetings, more accumulation of power, more managers and always, more
money.
Thus it is no surprise that the calls for "free" college and "Medicare for All" are
rising: the managerial elite that has bankrupted higher education and healthcare while
enriching themselves desperately needs to be bailed out, lest the systems they've steered
toward the fiscal cliff deservedly go broke.
In a similar set of incentives, few weapons systems ever come in under budget when the
Pentagon can always come up with another $10 or $20 billion for cost over-runs.
The system is broken, and the managerial elite will keep it broken because it serves
their interests to keep it broken. Unfortunately we'll all suffer when the managerial elite
is no longer able to stave off the dire fiscal consequences of their self-serving
leadership.
"... For the United States, as for all warlike nations, military power has traditionally been the decisive factor determining whether it wins or loses its campaigns to capture or subdue other countries. World War II was the climax of that bloody history. ..."
"... It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the regime-change era in the early 1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called the "New Look," rested on two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look" had a third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe that no one would ever discover what he sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change operations, much less explained why he favored them. ..."
For most of history, seizing another country or territory was a straightforward proposition.
You assembled an army and ordered it to invade. Combat determined the victor. The toll in death
and suffering was usually horrific, but it was all done in the open. That is how Alexander
overran Persia and how countless conquerors since have bent weaker nations to their will.
Invasion is the old-fashioned way.
When the United States joined the race for empire at the end of the 19th century, that was
the tactic it used. It sent a large expeditionary force to the Philippines to crush an
independence movement, ultimately killing some 200,000 Filipinos. At the other end of the
carnage spectrum, it seized Guam without the loss of a single life and Puerto Rico with few
casualties. Every time, though, U.S. victory was the result of superior military power. In the
few cases when the United States failed, as in its attempt to defend a client regime by
suppressing Augusto Cesar Sandino's nationalist rebellion in Nicaragua during the 1920s and
30s, the failure was also the product of military confrontation. For the United States, as for
all warlike nations, military power has traditionally been the decisive factor determining
whether it wins or loses its campaigns to capture or subdue other countries. World War II was
the climax of that bloody history.
After that war, however, something important changed. The United States no longer felt free
to land troops on every foreign shore that was ruled by a government it disliked or considered
threatening. Suddenly there was a new constraint: the Red Army. If American troops invaded a
country and overthrew its government, the Soviets might respond in kind. Combat between
American and Soviet forces could easily escalate into nuclear holocaust, so it had to be
avoided at all costs. Yet during the Cold War, the United States remained determined to shape
the world according to its liking -- perhaps more determined than ever. The United States
needed a new weapon. The search led to covert action.
A news agency
During World War II the United States used a covert agency, the Office of Strategic
Services, to carry out clandestine actions across Europe and Asia. As soon as the war ended, to
the shock of many OSS agents, Harry Truman abolished it. He believed there was no need for such
an agency during peacetime. In 1947 he changed his mind and signed the National Security Act,
under which the Central Intelligence Agency was established. That marked the beginning of a new
era. Covert action replaced overt action as the principal means of projecting American power
around the world.
Truman later insisted that he had intended the CIA to serve as a kind of private global news
service. "It was not intended as a 'Cloak & Dagger Outfit!'" he wrote. "It was intended
merely as a center for keeping the President informed on what was going on in the world [not]
to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized." Nonetheless
he did not hesitate to use the new CIA for covert action. Its first major campaign, aimed at
influencing the 1948 Italian election to ensure that pro-American Christian Democrats would
defeat their Communist rivals, was vast in scale and ultimately successful -- setting the
pattern for CIA intervention in every Italian election for the next two decades. Yet Truman
drew the line at covert action to overthrow governments.
The CIA's covert-action chief, Allen Dulles, twice proposed such projects. In both cases,
the target he chose was a government that had inflicted harm on corporations that he and his
brother, John Foster Dulles, had represented during their years as partners at the globally
powerful Wall Street law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. In 1952 he proposed that the CIA
overthrow President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala, whose government was carrying out land reform
that affected the interests of United Fruit. By one account, State Department officials "hit
the roof" when they heard his proposal, and the diplomat David Bruce told him that the
Department "disapproves of the entire deal." Then Dulles proposed an operation to overthrow
Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran, who had nationalized his country's oil industry.
Secretary of State Dean Acheson flatly rejected it.
White House resistance to covert regime-change operations dissolved when Dwight Eisenhower
succeeded Truman at the beginning of 1953. Part of the new administration's enthusiasm came
from Allen Dulles, Washington's most relentless advocate of such operations, whom Eisenhower
named to head the CIA. The fact that he named Dulles's brother as secretary of State ensured
that covert operations would have all the necessary diplomatic cover from the State Department.
During the Dulles brothers' long careers at Sullivan & Cromwell, they had not only learned
the techniques of covert regime change but practiced them. They were masters at marshaling
hidden power in the service of their corporate clients overseas. Now they could do the same
with all the worldwide resources of the CIA.
It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the regime-change era in the early
1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called
the "New Look," rested on two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look" had a
third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe that no one would ever discover what he
sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change
operations, much less explained why he favored them. He would, however, have had at least two reasons.
Since Eisenhower had commanded Allied forces in Europe during World War II, he was aware of
the role that covert operations such as breaking Nazi codes had played in the war victory --
something few other people knew at the time. That would have given him an appreciation for how
important and effective such operations could be. His second reason was even more powerful. In
Europe he had had the grim responsibility of sending thousands of young men out to die. That
must have weighed on him. He saw covert action as a kind of peace project. After all, if the
CIA could overthrow a government with the loss of just a few lives, wasn't that preferable to
war? Like most Americans, Eisenhower saw a world of threats. He also understood that the threat
of nuclear war made overt invasions all but unthinkable. Covert action was his answer. Within a
year and a half of his inauguration, the CIA had deposed the governments of both Guatemala and
Iran. It went on to other regime-change operations from Albania to Cuba to Indonesia.
Successive presidents followed his lead.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was once again free to launch
direct military invasions. When it found a leader it didn't like -- such as Saddam Hussein or
Muammar Qaddafi -- it deposed him not through covert action, but by returning to the approach
it had used before World War II: the force of arms. Covert efforts to overthrow governments
have hardly ceased, as any Iranian or Venezuelan could attest. The era when covert action was
America's principal weapon in world affairs, however, is over. That makes this a good time to
look back.
Metrics for covert action
Books about the Cold War heyday of covert action era are a mini-genre. Lindsey A. O'Rourke's
contribution is especially valuable. Unlike many other books built around accounts of CIA
plots, Covert Regime Change takes a scholarly and quantitative approach. It provides
charts, graphs, and data sets. Meticulous analysis makes this not the quickest read of any book
on the subject, but certainly one of the best informed. Chapters on the disastrous effort to
overthrow communist rule in Eastern Europe, which cost the lives of hundreds of deceived
partisans, and on the covert-action aspects of America's doomed campaign in Vietnam are
especially trenchant.
O'Rourke identifies three kinds of covert operations that are aimed at securing perceived
friends in power and keeping perceived enemies out: offensive operations to overthrow
governments, preventive operations aimed at preserving the status quo, and hegemonic operations
aimed at keeping a foreign nation subservient. From 1947 to 1989, by her count, the United
States launched 64 covert regime-change operations, while using the overt tool -- war -- just
six times. She traces the motivations behind these operations, the means by which they were
carried out, and their effects. Her text is based on meticulous analysis of individual
operations. Some other books about covert action are rip-roaring yarns. This one injects a dose
of
rigorous analysis into a debate that is often based on emotion. That rigor lends credence to
her conclusions:
When policymakers want to conduct an operation that they know violates international
norms, they simply conduct it covertly to hide their involvement.
Covert missions typically have lower potential costs than their overt counterparts, but
they are also less likely to succeed.
Can interveners acquire reliable allies by covertly overthrowing foreign governments?
Overall, I find the answer is no. Covert regime changes seldom worked out as intended.
The new leader's opponents often accused him of being a U.S. puppet and, in some cases,
even took up arms against the regime. In fact, approximately half of the governments that
came to power in a U.S.-backed covert regime change during the Cold War were later violently
removed from power.
States targeted in a covert regime-change operation appear less likely to be democratic
afterward and more likely to experience civil war, adverse regime changes, or human-rights
abuses
Covert regime changes can have disastrous consequences for civilians within the target
states. Countries that were targeted by the United States for a covert regime change during
the Cold War were more likely to experience a civil war or an episode of mass killing
afterward.
Even nominally successful covert regime changes -- where U.S.-backed forces came to power
-- seldom delivered on their promise to improve interstate relations.
Although these conclusions are not new, they have rarely if ever been presented as the
result of such persuasive statistical evidence. Yet even this evidence seems unlikely to force
a reassessment of covert action as a way to influence or depose governments. It is an American
"addiction." The reasons are many and varied, but one of the simplest is that covert action
seems so easy. Changing an unfriendly country's behavior through diplomacy is a long, complex,
multi-faceted project. It takes careful thought and planning. Often it requires compromise.
Sending the CIA to overthrow a "bad guy" is far more tempting. It's the cheap and easy way out.
History shows that it often produces terrible results for both the target country and the
United States. To a military and security elite as contemptuous of history as America's,
however, that is no obstacle.
Although covert regime-change operations remain a major part of American foreign policy,
they are not as effective as they once were. The first victims of CIA overthrows, Prime
Minister Mossadegh and President Arbenz, did not understand the tools the CIA had at its
disposal and so were easy targets. They were also democratic, meaning that they allowed open
societies in which the press, political parties, and civic groups functioned freely -- making
them easy for the CIA to penetrate. Later generations of leaders learned from their ignorance.
They paid closer attention to their own security, and imposed tightly controlled regimes in
which there were few independent power centers that the CIA could manipulate.
If Eisenhower could come back to life, he would see the havoc that his regime-change
operations wreaked. After his overthrow of Mossadegh, Iran fell under royal dictatorship that
lasted a quarter-century and was followed by decades of rule by repressive mullahs who have
worked relentlessly to undermine American interests around the world. The operation he ordered
in Guatemala led to a civil war that killed 200,000 people, turning a promising young democracy
into a charnel house and inflicting a blow on Central America from which it has never
recovered. His campaign against Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, which included the
fabrication of a poison kit in a CIA laboratory, helped turn that country into one of the most
violent places on Earth.
How would Eisenhower respond to the long-term disasters that followed his covert action
victories? He might well have come up with a highly convincing way to excuse himself. It's now
clear, he could argue, that covert action to overthrow governments usually has terrible
long-term results -- but that was not clear in the 1950s. Eisenhower had no way of knowing that
even covert regime-change operations that seem successful at the time could have devastating
results decades later.
We today, however, do know that. The careful analysis that is at the center of Covert
Regime Change makes clearer than ever that when America sets out to change the world
covertly, it usually does more harm than good -- to itself as well as others. O'Rourke
contributes to the growing body of literature that clearly explains this sad fact of
geopolitics. The intellectual leadership for a national movement against regime-change
operations -- overt or covert -- is coalescing. The next step is to take this growing body of
knowledge into the political arena. Washington remains the province of those who believe not
only that the United States should try to reconfigure the world into an immense American sphere
of influence, but that that is an achievable goal. In the Beltway morass of pro-intervention
think tanks, members of Congress, and op-ed columnists, America's role in the world is usually
not up for debate. Now, as a presidential campaign unfolds and intriguing new currents surge
through the American body politic, is an ideal moment for that debate to re-emerge. If it does,
we may be surprised to see how many voters are ready to abandon the dogma of regime change and
wonder, with George Washington, "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?"
This article was originally published in the June 2019 edition ofFuture of Freedom .
This post was written by: Stephen Kinzer Stephen Kinzer is an author and
newspaper reporter. He is a veteran New York Times correspondent who has reported from more
than 50 countries on five continents. His books include "Overthrow" and "All the Shah's Men".
Leda Cosmides at the University of California, Santa Barbara, points to her work with her colleague
John Tooby on the use of outrage to mobilize people: "The campaign was more about outrage than
about policies," she says. And when a politician can create a sense of moral outrage, truth
ceases to matter. People will go along with the emotion, support the cause and retrench into
their own core group identities. The actual substance stops being of any relevance.
Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth University who studies false beliefs,
has found that
when false information is specifically political in nature, part of our political identity, it
becomes almost impossible to correct lies.
... ... ...
As the 19th-century Scottish philosopher Alexander Bain
put it, “The great master fallacy of the
human mind is believing too much.” False beliefs, once established, are incredibly tricky to correct. A leader who lies
constantly creates a new landscape, and a citizenry whose sense of reality may end up swaying far more than they think possible.
"... Of course, being cover-ups by the government may make them appear acceptable, at least to a naive public. Many of them are rationalized as necessary for the sake of national "security." And, of course, everyone wants to be "secure," accepting the notion that "people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." ..."
In a May, 22, 2019 appearance in the White House Rose Garden, President Donald Trump
declared that "I don't
do cover-ups ." Various news outlets immediately started to enumerate a long list of
bona
fide cover-ups associated with the president.
... ... ...
Unfortunately, Trump's behavior is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to cover-ups.
One can surmise that just by virtue of being the head of the U.S. government, the president --
any president -- must be directly or indirectly associated with hundreds of such evasions. That
is because, it can be argued without much paranoia, that every major division of the government
is hiding something -- particularly when it comes to foreign activities.
Of course, being cover-ups by the government may make them appear acceptable, at least to a
naive public. Many of them are rationalized as necessary for the sake of national "security."
And, of course, everyone wants to be "secure," accepting the notion that "people sleep peaceably in their beds at night
only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
The fact that much of this violence is done to other innocent people trying to get a
peaceful night's rest is "classified" information. So woe be it to the truth tellers who defy
these rationalizations and sound off. For they shall be cast out of our democratic heaven into
one of the pits of hell that pass for a U.S. prison -- or, if they are fleet-footed, chased
into exile.
"... But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. ..."
"... Those who have followed Trump's career say his lying isn't just a tactic, but an ingrained habit. ..."
"... Our brains are particularly ill-equipped to deal with lies when they come not singly but in a constant stream ..."
"... In politics, false information has a special power. If false information comports with preexisting beliefs -- something that is often true in partisan arguments -- attempts to refute it can actually backfire , planting it even more firmly in a person's mind. ..."
"... Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth University who studies false beliefs, has found that when false information is specifically political in nature, part of our political identity, it becomes almost impossible to correct lies. ..."
Maria Konnikova is a contributing writer at the New Yorker and author, most recently, of The Confidence Game: Why
We Fall for It Every Time .
All presidents lie. Richard Nixon said he was not a crook, yet he orchestrated the most shamelessly crooked act
in the modern presidency. Ronald Reagan said he wasn't aware of the Iran-Contra deal; there's evidence he was. Bill Clinton said
he did not have sex with that woman; he did, or close enough. Lying in politics transcends political party and era. It is, in some
ways, an inherent part of the profession of politicking.
But Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no
precedent. Nixon, Reagan and Clinton were protecting their reputations; Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping
70 percent of Trump's statements that PolitiFact
checked during the campaign were false, while only 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true. (Compare that to the
politician Trump dubbed "crooked," Hillary Clinton: Just
26 percent of her statements were deemed false.)
Those who have followed Trump's career say his lying isn't just a tactic, but an ingrained habit. New York tabloid writers
who covered Trump as a mogul on the rise in the 1980s and '90s
found him categorically different from the other self-promoting celebrities in just how often, and pointlessly, he would lie
to them. In his own autobiography, Trump used the phrase
"truthful hyperbole,"
a term coined by his ghostwriter referring to the flagrant truth-stretching that Trump employed, over and over, to help close
sales. Trump apparently loved the wording, and went on to adopt it as his own.
On January 20, Trump's truthful hyperboles will no longer be relegated to the world of dealmaking or campaigning. Donald Trump
will become the chief executive of the most powerful nation in the world, the man charged with representing that nation globally
-- and, most importantly, telling the story of America back to Americans. He has the megaphone of the White House press office, his
popular Twitter account and a loyal new right-wing media army that will not just parrot his version of the truth but actively argue
against attempts to knock it down with verifiable facts. Unless Trump dramatically transforms himself, Americans are going to start
living in a new reality, one in which their leader is a manifestly unreliable source.
What does this mean for the country -- and for the Americans on the receiving end of Trump's constantly twisting version of reality?
It's both a cultural question and a psychological one. For decades, researchers have been wrestling with the nature of falsehood:
How does it arise? How does it affect our brains? Can we choose to combat it? The answers aren't encouraging for those who worry
about the national impact of a reign of untruth over the next four, or eight, years. Lies are exhausting to fight, pernicious in
their effects and, perhaps worst of all, almost impossible to correct if their content resonates strongly enough with people's sense
of themselves, which Trump's clearly do.
***
What happens when a lie hits your brain? The now-standard model was first
proposed by Harvard
University psychologist Daniel Gilbert more than 20 years ago. Gilbert argues that people see the world in two steps. First, even
just briefly, we hold the lie as true: We must accept something in order to understand it. For instance, if someone were to tell
us --
hypothetically, of course -- that there had been serious voter fraud in Virginia during the presidential election, we must for
a fraction of a second accept that fraud did, in fact, take place. Only then do we take the second step, either completing the mental
certification process (yes, fraud!) or rejecting it (what? no way). Unfortunately, while the first step is a natural part of thinking
-- it happens automatically and effortlessly -- the second step can be easily disrupted. It takes work: We must actively choose to
accept or reject each statement we hear. In certain circumstances, that verification simply fails to take place.
As Gilbert writes, human minds, "when faced with shortages of time, energy, or conclusive evidence, may fail to unaccept the ideas
that they involuntarily accept during comprehension."
When we are overwhelmed with false, or potentially false, statements, our brains pretty quickly become so overworked that we stop
trying to sift through everything.
Our brains are particularly ill-equipped to deal with lies when they come not singly but in a constant stream...
... ... ...
In politics, false information has a special power. If false information comports with preexisting beliefs -- something that
is often true in partisan arguments -- attempts to refute it can actually
backfire
, planting it
even more firmly
in a person's mind. Trump won over Republican voters, as well as alienated Democrats, by declaring himself opposed to "Washington,"
"the establishment" and "political correctness," and by stoking fears about the Islamic State, immigrants and crime. Leda Cosmides
at the University of California, Santa Barbara, points to her
work with her colleague John Tooby on the use of
outrage to mobilize people:
"The campaign was more about outrage than about policies," she says. And when a politician can create a sense of moral outrage,
truth ceases to matter. People will go along with the emotion, support the cause and retrench into their own core group identities.
The actual substance stops being of any relevance.
Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth University who studies false beliefs,
has found that when false information is specifically
political in nature, part of our political identity, it becomes almost impossible to correct lies. When people read an article
beginning with George W. Bush's assertion that Iraq may pass weapons to terrorist networks, which later contained the fact that Iraq
didn't actually possess any WMDs at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the initial misperception persisted among Republicans
-- and, indeed, was frequently strengthened.
In the face of a seeming assault on their identity, they didn't change their minds to conform with the truth: Instead, amazingly,
they doubled down on the exact views that were explained to be wrong.
It's easy enough to correct minor false facts if they aren't crucial to your sense of self. Alas, nothing political fits into
that bucket.
With regard to Trump specifically, Nyhan points out that claims related to ethno-nationalism -- Trump's declaration early in the
campaign that Mexico was sending "rapists" across the border, for instance -- get at the very core of who we are as humans, which
"may make people less willing or able to evaluate the statement empirically." If you already believe immigrants put your job at risk,
who's to say the chastity of your daughters isn't in danger, too? Or as Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker puts it, once
Trump makes that emotional connection, "He could say what he wants, and they'll follow him."
It also explains the rise of think tanks, which are more pliant than academics but provide
similar marketing support. As Benjamin Friedman and I wrote in a 2015 article on the subject,
think tanks undertake research with an operational mindset: that is, "the approach of a
passenger riding shotgun who studies the map to find the ideal route, adjusts the engine if
need be, and always accepts the destination without protest."
As former senator Olympia Snowe once put it, "you can find a think tank to buttress any view
or position, and then you give it the aura of legitimacy and credibility by referring to their
report." Or consider the view of Rory Stewart, now a member of parliament in the UK, but once
an expert on Afghanistan who was consulted on the Afghan surge but opposed it:
It's like they're coming in and saying to you, "I'm going to drive my car off a cliff.
Should I or should I not wear a seatbelt?" And you say, "I don't think you should drive your
car off the cliff." And they say, "No, no, that bit's already been decided -- the question is
whether to wear a seatbelt." And you say, "Well, you might as well wear a seatbelt." And then
they say, "We've consulted with policy expert Rory Stewart, and he says "
Or look at how policymakers themselves define relevance. Stephen Krasner, an academic who
became a policymaker, lamented the uselessness of much academic security studies literature
because "[e]ven the most convincing empirical findings may be of no practical use because they
do not include factors that policy makers can manipulate."
The explicit claim here is that for scholarship to be of any practical use, it must include
factors that policymakers can manipulate. This reflects a strong bias toward action, even in
relatively restrained presidencies.
To take two recent examples, the Obama administration blew past voluminous academic
literature suggesting the Libya intervention was likely to disappoint. President Barack Obama
himself asked the CIA to analyze success in arming insurgencies before making a decision over
what to do in Syria. The CIA replied with a study showing that arming and financing
insurgencies rarely works. Shortly thereafter, Obama launched a billion-dollar effort to arm
and finance insurgents in Syria.
♦♦♦
As Desch tracks the influence of scholars on foreign policy across the 20th century, a
pattern becomes clear: where scholars agree with policy, they are relevant. Where they do not,
they are not.
In several of the cases Desch identifies where scholars disagreed with policy, they were
right and the policymakers were tragically, awfully wrong. In the instances where scholars
differed with policy at high levels, Desch blames their "unrealistic expectations" for causing
"wartime social scientists to overlook the more modest, but real, contribution they actually
made" to policy. But why would we want scholars to trim their sails in this way? And why should
social scientists want to be junior partners in doomed enterprises?
Social scientists have produced reams of qualitative and historically focused research with
direct relevance to policy. They publish blog posts, tweets, excerpts, op-eds, and video
encapsulations of their work. The only thing left for them to do is to convey their findings
via interpretive dance, and a plan for doing that is probably in the works already. In the
meantime, it should be simultaneously heartening and discouraging for policy-inclined scholars
to realize that It's Not Us, It's Them.
In a country as powerful and secure as the United States, elites can make policy built on
shaky foundations. Eventually, the whole thing may collapse. Scholars should focus on pointing
out these fundamental flaws -- and thinking about how they might help rebuild.
Justin Logan is director of programs and a research associate at the Center for the Study
of Statesmanship at Catholic University.
[Karl Rove] said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,'
which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of
discernible reality.' [ ] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued.
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities,
which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.
Experts, shmexperts! Who needs realism when you're creating your own reality.
Another question occurs to me: Who are the executives or politicians trying to impress
when they bring in captive consultants or scholars? Ordinary people (customers or voters)
don't care. Customers just want a good product, and voters just want sane policies.
Competing leaders know the game and don't bother to listen.
In so much of the world's leadership today it is not science that is being ignored and
corrupted so much as rational thought and a personal insight mature enough to find
indisputable the need for the opinion of others.
But, to this post's point, I once had a statistician with a doctorate in his profession
casually state their numbers predicted Stalin would fail. In response, my thought was when in
the history of the known galaxy did putting a soulless person in charge ever not fail?
Compassion alone would predict that outcome.
The absolute most corrupting influence in current foreign policy discussion is the growth of
the mis-named growth of "think" tanks. One can discern immediately the message when
determining author and organization.
Moar war, russia, iran, et al are threats, moar military spending, support israel at all
costs, etc, etc.
These 'think' tanks are extremely well funded by oligarchs and foreign money so the bottom
line is directed towards pre-selected objectives. Even the state dept is getting into the act
to atk pro-Iran activists.
While the academics might be deemed irrelevant when views differ, the government in-house
analysts might even loose their jobs if their positions differ from those of the decision
makers. I know I lost mine, and it wasn't even in foreign policy or national security
It's the mentality of forever war that considers diversity subversive.
The purpose of Think Tanks and foreign policy experts (misnamed) is to rally the troops
against our enemies list, not to improve our interaction with the rest of the world but to
defeat them. To them, it is always WW2. Yemen must die because we can connect them to Iran;
they are Dresden.
BTW I know the author was talking about actual experts. They have all been purged and
dismissed as Arabist or enemy sympathizers. Track records don't matter, to them we are at war
and will always be so.
President Barack Obama himself asked the CIA to analyze success in arming insurgencies
before making a decision over what to do in Syria. The CIA replied with a study showing that
arming and financing insurgencies rarely works. Shortly thereafter, Obama launched a
billion-dollar effort to arm and finance insurgents in Syria.
*Silently screams in frustration*
And this is why I ended up ultimately disappointed with Obama. The man was utterly
incapable of standing up to what passes for conventional wisdom inside the Beltway. "Hope and
change," my butt. The hoped for change never did arrive in the end.
Say what you will about Trump, he surely doesn't give a flying fart about wisdom,
conventional or otherwise. Instead of driving the car off a cliff, he just sets it on fire
from the get go to save on gas.
I liked the article.
A good reminder that if people did not heed the divine warning in Paradise,
but chose the disastrous advice of the serpent, then what can we expect
from modern politicians? Wrong, dangerous behavior seems to be inherent
in the human mentality, otherwise who would smelt metals, descend into mines,
discover America, study radiation?
Cult of the Irrelevant reminds me of the 80 and 20 statistical, empirical principle,
where out of 100 things, articles, words, recommendations, 20% are useful,
80% are useless. However for 20 useful percent to form, you need a statistical
pressure of 80 useless.
"Practice is the criterion of truth." Having eaten the forbidden apple, people were driven
out of paradise, but instead they learned to distinguish between good and evil.
Without this property, it would be impossible to recognize "the effective
treatments"significantly exaggerated by dishonest pharmacologists..
"... I agree with the premise, that the NARRATIVE is the means by which oligarchy rules the masses. ..."
"... As Mencken stated (approx) "the common man avoids the truth [because] it is dangerous, no good can come of it, and it doesn't pay." ..."
"... Americans are propagandized from childhood, and it's very hard for most to break free, even if they want to. In my case, a rather abusive childhood made me disinclined to accept conventional wisdom. ..."
"... The proverbial man in the street is well aware that capitalism/politics is a racket and openly say so. ..."
"... The falling numbers in the 'democracies' who now bother to vote is an indication of this, as is the growing political unrest in the heartlands of the Anglo-Zionist empire. It is not possible to 'fool all of the people all of the time'. Whether they do anything about it is another matter. ..."
"... These are dangerous times, but that is the usual condition when the structure of any social and political order is beginning to crumble. Ultimately, the Anglo-Zionist empire is, to use Lenin's description 'A colossus with feet of clay.' No empire lasts forever, and the US is not exceptional in this respect. The real problem is that the demise of the US hegemonic project will taken down the rest of the planet with it. ..."
Thank you Caitlin for this piece. Depressing but not unexpectedly so. And if my late
husband's FB friends (as I've mentioned on here before) are anything to go by, the
overwhelmingly bourgeois crowd will continue to be *willingly* propagandized with the
Russophobic, Sinophobic and Iranophobic lies of commission and omission that regale them via
MSDNC, NPR, PBS, BBC and the so-called "progressive" press (e.g. The guardian, Jacobin, the
NYT).
These friends post pro-Demrat, pro-Russiagate, consider the choice to be between Warren
and Klobuchar (?), and concentrate their minds on *progressive* ideations: sexual
preference/"gender" identity/racial/ethnic identity and now and then a little on climate
change (especially via the "green ND" – saving capitalism being all consuming or
ignored). Never a word about income inequality, about the ongoing slaughter in Yemen, of the
ongoing, never-ending nightmare of Palestinian life, of what we have done to Libya, Iraq or
Afghanistan or are doing to Syria. Not a word about the immorality, illegality of our
economic sanctions against NK, VZ, Iran nooo. Nary a peep about what we (US-UK-AU) are doing
to Assange .
These really existing realities as lived by "others" whether the poor within these borders
or the darker hued folks far from these shores do *not* matter one iota, certainly not by
comparison with being able to vacation in this or that place, buy a bigger house, more
clothes, demonstrate one's *Progressiveness.*
I agree with the premise, that the NARRATIVE is the means by which oligarchy rules the
masses.
For example, we are now being inundated with the NARRATIVE that Iran is attacking Japanese
oil tankers. Pure nonsense, but the media is an adjunct of the bankster/military/oil
industrial complex.
Politicians are merely puppets doing the bidding of their pay masters.
Sam F , June 14, 2019 at 05:46
Yes, money control of mass media is the problem. Such articles may help some with doubts
to formulate an awareness that leads to admission of the problem. The major factor in
admissions is the rare direct experience, which may include a story close to home, a personal
loss due to narrative control. Of course the majority seek the mass media narrative because
it directs them to safety and profit in their social and economic dependent relationships.
Our unregulated market economy encourages the selfishness that enslaves the people to money
power. As Mencken stated (approx) "the common man avoids the truth [because] it is
dangerous, no good can come of it, and it doesn't pay."
I hope to set up a college of policy debate CPD constituted to protect all points of view,
and to conduct moderated text-only debate among experts of several disciplines, of the status
and possibilities of each world region, and the policy options. Debate summaries commented by
all sides are to be made available for public study and comment. The CPD would bring the
knowledge of society into public debate, educate the electorate, discourage propaganda, and
expose the wrongs of society and the corruption of government that desperately needs
reform.
The debates will require a higher standard of argument in foreign and domestic policy on
both right and left, ensure that all points of view are heard, and require all challenges to
be answered. This would have much reduced the group-think that led to our mad wars since
WWII. Extreme and naïve politicians will be easier to expose, and media commentators
will have a starting point and a standard for investigation and analysis.
Zhu , June 14, 2019 at 04:14
Americans are propagandized from childhood, and it's very hard for most to break free,
even if they want to. In my case, a rather abusive childhood made me disinclined to accept
conventional wisdom.
Donald Duck , June 14, 2019 at 03:18
"The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation." I have forgotten who actually said this
but it seems appropriate for our age. I think the mass of people are very well aware of what
is going on. The proverbial man in the street is well aware that capitalism/politics is a
racket and openly say so.
The falling numbers in the 'democracies' who now bother to vote is an indication of
this, as is the growing political unrest in the heartlands of the Anglo-Zionist empire. It is
not possible to 'fool all of the people all of the time'. Whether they do anything about it
is another matter.
If note is taken of the David Icke phenomenon it is possible to identify a growing
awareness of the of ordinary people to the crimes of the rich and powerful.
These are dangerous times, but that is the usual condition when the structure of any
social and political order is beginning to crumble. Ultimately, the Anglo-Zionist empire is,
to use Lenin's description 'A colossus with feet of clay.' No empire lasts forever, and the
US is not exceptional in this respect. The real problem is that the demise of the US
hegemonic project will taken down the rest of the planet with it.
Zhu , June 14, 2019 at 04:21
"Quiet desperation" is ftom Thoreau. The colossus with the feet of clay is the Biblical
book of Daniel, the dream of Nebuchadnezzar.
Neither Reptilans nor Zionists make us Americans commit the crimes and follies we do. We
oirselves are responsible.
T.J , June 14, 2019 at 02:43
Caitlin Johnstone has concisely and precisely, in this article, provided a compendium of
ideas and sources to explain how the powerful through it's control of propaganda corrupts
democracy to the core. Laziness, ignorance and acceptance of the status quo prevents the vast
majority from acknowledging this to be the case. As Caitlin states it takes courage to reject
the "narrative control matrix " of the powerful and that can only be achieved by changing our
relationship with that narrative. This, of course, takes time and effort but is liberating
nonetheless.
"Cult leaders [demagogues] arise from decayed communities and societies in which people have
been shorn of political, social and economic power. The disempowered, infantilized by a world
they cannot control, gravitate to cult leaders who appear omnipotent and promise a return to a
mythical golden age.
The cult leaders vow to crush the forces, embodied in demonized groups and individuals, that
are blamed for their misery. The more outrageous the cult leaders become, the more they flout
law and social conventions, the more they gain in popularity.
Cult leaders are immune to the norms of established society. This is their appeal. Cult
leaders demand a God-like power. Those who follow them grant them this power in the hope that
the cult leaders will save them."
Chris Hedges, Cult of Trump
"Mounting a campaign against plutocracy makes as much sense to the typical Washington
liberal as would circulating a petition against gravity. What our modernized liberal leaders
offer is not confrontation but a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market
hurricane: they counsel us to accept the inevitability of the situation."
Thomas Frank, Rendezvous With Oblivion
"We of the Republic sensed the truth that democratic government has innate capacity to
protect its people against disasters once considered inevitable, to solve problems once
considered unsolvable. We would not admit that we could not find a way to master economic
epidemics just as, after centuries of fatalistic suffering, we had found a way to master
epidemics of disease. We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by
the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster. In this we Americans were discovering no
wholly new truth; we were writing a new chapter in our book of self-government.
Franklin Roosevelt, Second Inaugural Address
"The problem of the last three decades is not the 'vicissitudes of the marketplace,' but
rather deliberate actions by the [corporatist] government to redistribute income from the rest
of us to the one percent."
This just in from the Big Island. The natives seem restless.
"Imagine if you will, in a few short years, that information on current events will only be available from a narrow band of sources
sanctioned by the government/corporate media. And this Orwellian future will be embraced by the majority of people because it
provides security, both ideological and emotional.
Any dissension, criticism, whistle-blowing, anti-exceptionalism coming from critical voices will be labeled extremist. And
this has been embraced by the two monopoly political parties.
I just received a questionnaire from the Democrats posing the question, "What's the most important issue in the upcoming
election?"
The very first multiple choice answer to pick from was - "Russian aggression and increasing global influence" Russia, a country with a small population and an economy that is a fraction of the US or Europe is our dire threat? Let's
just ignore the expansion of NATO onto Russia's borders, or that the US State Dept. spent 5 billion dollar to change the politics
of Ukraine.
Second most important issue asked on the questionnaire, "Protecting America from foreign cyber attacks" Let's ignore
the fact that the NSA is spying on all Internet traffic, that the CIA has misinformation programs like, "Operation Mockingbird"
and many other covert activities to influence perceptions domestically.
The third Democratic Party priority question is "China's increasing economic and military strength" China's state controlled
mercantile success lies directly on the twin shoulders of the US Government and it's multi-national corporations. The US granted
China, Most Favored Nation status in 1979, which gave it exposure to US markets with low tariffs. Almost immediately, corporations
went to China and invested in factories because of the cheap Chinese labor while abandoning the US worker. And in May 2000 Bill
Clinton backed a bipartisan effort to grant China permanent normal trade relations, effectively backing its bid to join the WTO.
We live in a country whereby the US Government has made it possible for corporations to pay little or no taxes, to be deregulated
from government laws designed to protect the public, and allow corporate crimes to go unpunished while maintaining vast influence
over the political system through campaign contributions and corporate ownership of the mass media.
This US Government/corporate partnership smells a lot like Fascism. Instead of Mussolini we have Trumpolini. And so our time's
brand of corporatism has descended over the eroding infrastructure of America."
"... "When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief, it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise -- to deny the political character of the modern corporation -- is not merely to avoid the reality. It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that disguise are those we instruct in error." ..."
"There
was time when average Americans could be counted upon to know correctly whether the country was going up or down, because in those
days when America prospered, the American people prospered as well. These days things are different.
Let's look at it in a statistical sense. If you look at it from the middle of the 1930's (the Depression) up until the year
1980, the lower 90 percent of the population of this country, what you might call the American people, that group took home 70
percent of the growth in the country's income. If you look at the same numbers from 1997 up until now, from the height of the
great Dot Com bubble up to the present, you will find that this same group, the American people, pocketed none of this country's
income growth at all.
Our share of these great good times was zero, folks. The upper ten percent of the population, by which we mean our country's
financiers and managers and professionals, consumed the entire thing. To be a young person in America these days is to understand
instinctively the downward slope that so many of us are on."
Thomas Frank, Kansas City Missouri, 6 April 2017
"When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief,
it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise -- to deny the political
character of the modern corporation -- is not merely to avoid the reality. It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that
disguise are those we instruct in error."
John Kenneth Galbraith
One of the older male anchors on financial TV today noted, in a very condescending tone, that for some reason Elizabeth Warren
'has an attitude' when it comes to corporations.
I hope she and some of her like minded fellows get their opportunity to extend the hand of equal justice to these smug serial
felons, pampered polecats, and corporatist clowns. It has been a long time coming.
Is Donald
Trump a fascist? The question is usually posed as an insult rather than as a serious
inquiry. A common response is that "he is not as bad as Hitler", but this rather dodges the
issue. Hitler was one hideous exponent of fascism , which comes in different flavours
but he was by no means the only one.
The answer is that fascist leaders and fascism in the 1920s and 1930s were similar in many
respects to Trump and Trumpism. But they had additional toxic characteristics, born out of a
different era and a historic experience different from the United States.
What are the most important features of fascism? They include ultra-nationalism and
authoritarianism; the demonisation and persecution of minorities; a cult of the leader; a
demagogic appeal to the "ignored" masses and against a "treacherous" establishment; contempt
for parliamentary institutions; disregard for the law while standing on a law and order
platform; control of the media and the crushing of criticism; slogans promising everything to
everybody; a promotion of force as a means to an end leading to violence, militarism and
war.
The list could go on to include less significant traits such as a liking for public displays
of strength and popularity at rallies and parades; a liking also for gigantic building projects
as the physical embodiment of power.
Hitler and Mussolini ticked all these boxes and Trump ticks most of them, though with some
important exceptions. German and Italian fascism was characterised above all else by aggressive
and ultimately disastrous wars. Trump, on the contrary, is a genuine "isolationist" who has not
started a single war in the two-and-a-half years he has been in the White House.
It is not that Trump abjures force, but he prefers it to be commercial and economic rather
than military, and he is deploying it against numerous countries from China to Mexico and Iran.
As a strategy this is astute, avoiding the bear traps that American military intervention fell
into in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is an approach which weakens the targeted state economically,
but it does not produce decisive victories or unconditional surrenders.
It is a policy more dangerous than it looks: Trump may not want a war, but the same is not
true of Mike Pompeo, his secretary of state, or his national security adviser John Bolton. And
it is even less true of US allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who have been
pushing Washington towards war with Iran long before Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman took
control in Riyadh in 2015.
Trump's aversion to military intervention jibes with these other influences, but it is
erratic because it depends on the latest tweet from the White House. A weakness, not just of
fascist leaders but of all dictatorial regimes, is their exaggerated dependence on the
decisions of a single individual with God-like confidence in their own judgement. Nothing can
be decided without their fiat and they must never be proved wrong or be seen to fail.
Trump has modes of operating rather than sustained policies that are consequently shallow
and confused. One ambassador in Washington confides privately that he has successfully engaged
with the most senior officials in the administration, but this was not doing him a lot of good
because they had no idea of what was happening. The result of this Louis XIV approach to
government is institutionalised muddle: Trump may not want a war in the Middle East but he
could very easily blunder into one.
Of course, Trump is not alone in this: populist nationalist authoritarian leaders on the
rise all over the world win and hold power in ways very similar to the fascists of the
inter-war period. What is there in these two eras almost a century apart that would explain
this common political trajectory?
Fears and hatreds born out of the First World War, the Russian Revolution and the Great
Depression propelled the fascists towards power. When old allegiances and beliefs were
shattered and discredited, people naturally looked to new creeds and saviours. "The more
pathological the situation the less important is the intrinsic worth of the idol," wrote the
great British historian Lewis Namier in 1947. "His feet may be of clay and his face may be
blank: it is the frenzy of the worshippers which imparts to him meaning and power."
Is the same thing happening again? Fascism was the product of a cataclysmic period in the
first half of the 20th century that is very different from today. The US failed to get its way
in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but these were small-scale conflicts in no way comparable to
the First World War. The recession that followed the 2008 crash was a blip compared to the
Thirties.
Many of the better off reassure themselves with such thoughts. But they underestimate the
destructiveness of de-industrialisation and technological change for great numbers across the
globe. Inequality has vastly increased. Economies expand, but the benefits are skewed towards
the wealthy. Metropolitan centres plugged into the global economy flourished, but not their
periphery.
The distinction between winners and losers varies from country to country but governments
everywhere underestimated the unhappiness caused by social and economic upheaval. Beneficiaries
of the status quo invariably downplay the significance of fault lines that populists are swift
to identify and exploit.
Philip Hammond, the British chancellor of the exchequer, contemptuously dismisses claims by
the UN that great number of people in Britain were living in "dire poverty" and saying that, in
so far as deprivation existed, the government was acting effectively to address the problem.
The new wave of Trump-like leaders springing up all over the globe do not have to do very much
to do better than this.
Such overconfidence on the part of the powers-that-be is becoming rarer. Democrats who had
convinced themselves that Trumpism would be exposed and discredited as a conspiracy wished on
America by the dark powers in the Kremlin have seen their fantasy evaporate.
But there is probably worse to come: experience shows that populist authoritarian
nationalism – what Namier called "Caesarian democracy" – is not a static
phenomenon. It may not begin with all the fascist characterisation listed above, but its
trajectory is always in their direction. Regimes become more nationalistic, authoritarian,
demagogic, shifting from intolerance of criticism or opposition to a determination to
extinguish it entirely.
A case study of this process is Turkey, where President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is reinforcing
his one-man rule by overturning an opposition victory in the election to choose the mayor of
Istanbul. Many Americans deny that the same process is happening in the US, but they tend to be
the same people who did not believe that Trump could be elected in the first place.
'Trump may not want a war in the Middle East but he could very easily blunder into one.'
Nations blunder into the very war they are trying to avoid – abject defeat. The US
president, encouraged by his counselors, might launch an attack on Iran, not realizing the
consequences. He wouldn't be alone in history for doing that, so it cannot be held against
him. Regional conflicts today are so interconnected that a localized dispute could drag in
the major nuclear powers in multiple theaters. That is what happens if vital interests clash.
It is the pattern of history. And there is nothing to suggest it has changed. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Let me get this straight: Cockburn identifies the central problem as the widening inequality
that emerged following the Great Recession of 2008, but then he blames Trump for being Trump.
WTF!
Here's Cockburn: " Inequality has vastly increased. Economies expand, but the benefits are
skewed towards the wealthy. Metropolitan centres plugged into the global economy flourished,
but not their periphery."
Trumps a ceo which is dictatorial hardly as dangerous as your FDR WILSON TEDDY LINCOLN ETC.
FASISM is the death throes of democracy as it tries to resist its inevitable slide into
further extremes of Mobism it tries to put a bit of lipstick on the pig with fascism. It
tries to recover a bit of order with authority and a bit of lawfulness by reigning in a bit
of the elite looting Democracy leads to cultural degeneracy and so there's often a lowbrow
attempt at restoring the culture the elite highbrows having led the degeneracy spiral only
the middle is available to try and save the culture.
I am yet to read a convincing argument how the most hardline Zionist president in US history,
who had his campaign run by the AIPAC guy Michael Glassner, influenced by Jared Kushner and
proud Christian Zionist Steve Bannon, who hired Jewish Goldman Sachs bankers Mnuchin and
Cohen right from the start, made the Jewish olgarchy of the Kushners and others into Jewish
aristocracy in the white house, has most to all his children married or dating Jews, is an
obscene, vulgar and tasteless vessel for the wishes of the Jewish Casino Godfather Sheldon
Adelson, filled his government with Neocons, has his power base in Zionist Evangelical
Christians, has somehow anything remotely to do with with Adolf Hitler or Benito
Mussolini. -- This one isn't.
Neither are Boomerisms about what "fascism" is or isn't. And the downright idiotic
habbit of Anglosphere journalists and intellectuals to label totalitarianism as "fascist"
brings already a fundamental misinformation in the term itself. And I can only explain it
from a necessity of the Anglosphere commentators, who are drenched in post WW2 mythology, to
obfuscate the fact that one was allied to a certain Stalin and produced the rise of
communist China starting under Mao himself. The greatest mass murderer in human history who
did have near total control over his subjects and their minds. Unlike Mussolini and Hitler or
even Stalin.
What are the most important features of fascism? They include ultra-nationalism and
authoritarianism
As ultra-nationalistic as Churchill or Roosevelt, as authoritarian as Stalin and Mao.
the demonisation and persecution of minorities
Tibetans, Uyghurs, Palestinians – ah yes, and concentration camps for the Boer!
a cult of the leader
Echnaton, Caesar himself is actually a weaker example, Mao, Stalin, again Churchill, then
Truman; or John F. Kennedy for that matter: The enshrined patron-saint of US democracy and
its tragedy and crucifixion, his mythological rise to almost sainthood like Lincoln, or until
recently MLK jr. Nevermind that Hillary Clinton was the absolute and total cult leader figure
for the US establishment and Angela Merkel was crowned leader of the free world in a
detestable act of disinformation and lies, almost on the level of Stalinist lies. A woman who
has turned German parliamentary politics into a GDR like one party coalition of leftist
neo-liberal imperialism on her own people.
a demagogic appeal to the "ignored" masses and against a "treacherous" establishment
The masses are ignored. Want Anglosphere examples? Brexit. And as Charles Murray
noted: the peoples have – for generations! – voted against more
immigration, the establishment has also for generations ignored them. There is also something
to be said about the victims of Rotherham and how they were ignored, for over a decade crimes
comitted against them systematically covered up.
And when it comes to a treacherous establishment, look no further than to the Ziocons,
Merkel, May and unfortunately Trump himself now. How utterly rotten and morally bankrupt, for
example, the establishment of Britain is shows the case of again Rotherham and Jimmy
Savile.
contempt for parliamentary institutions
And for good reason! Politicians are mindless and usually incompetent drones to be bought
by foreign and corporate lobbies, pushed by manipulative and deceptive mass media and to be
used as pawns for foreign policy of unelected deep state actors.
disregard for the law while standing on a law and order platform
Ah yes! There is something about the acts of the declared "leader of the free world"
Angela Merkel breaking the German constitution and European law while ordering a stand down
to the German border police who was ready to close the German borders, to allow in a million
illegals against the strong wishes of at least a significant minority. This crypto-communist
also leads the "conservative" party of "stability" who loves to talk about democracy,
toleranz and openness and the dangers of undemocratic Russia.
control of the media and the crushing of criticism
ADL, SPLC, overwhelming control over the old media corporations and near monopoly control
over the internet and social media platforms of a certain group that shall not be named. But
it's certainly not better when the government itself directly controls the media as in
Europe. Is the author seriously trying to make the claim that today the dangers in
this regard come from new right populists? Or that this was something singular and a defining
characteristic of fascism?
slogans promising everything to everybody
"Wir schaffen das!", "Stadt für alle!", "Land für alle!", "Diversity is our
strength!" , "Globalism brings more wealth for everyone involved!", "Free trade is good
for everybody!", "Workers of the world unite! All you have to lose is your chains!"
a promotion of force as a means to an end leading to violence, militarism and war.
Ah yes such a true forces for peace and democracy and the freedom of all peoples of the
world the British Empire was and the USA are! The peoples of Vietnam, Serbia, Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Palestine and Germany can sing a song about it. The USA are such a peaceful
hegemon! Dedicated to spreading human rights, democracy and freedom globally. -- But they are
also nothing special in this regard. Indeed this point is typical for basically all forms of
government. Haven't you people read your Machiavelli?
What did derail the Trump movement and turned MAGA into MIGA and a continuation of the
status quo and its lobbies, were not the populist grassroots support for Trump – across
the entire West, even globally, or the hopes and wishes of the indeed ignored masses of the
USA, or the populist supporters in the West who saw him as a beacon of their own hopes and
wishes. It was the 'deep state' which by all means is just the functional reality of
representative, parliamentary democracy in the age of mass media, a global financial system
and corporations.
The claim that tree of life recipient Donald Trump and life long supporter and friend of
Israel is a "fascist" is even more bizarre and ridiculous than calling Saddam Hussein or
Muammar al-Gaddaffi Adolf Hitler. And do I really need to quote all the things Trump said
about Israel and Netanyahu, or after the synagogue shootings..?
But the idea that he is a true isolationist who doesn't want war, is absurd. The Syria
strikes speak volumes about his intellect, judgement, foreign policy independence and also
about his willingness to do anything what Bibi and Adelson want. Just as the embassy move to
Jerusalem, just as the Golan Heights and so much more.
The USA simply cannot start a war with Iran. Because they don't have the sufficient
access to execute a major ground invasion of Iran through Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan,
Turkmenistan, Pakistan or a D-Day like operation from the Sea. The USA also cannot do it,
because the overwhelming majority of the people in Europe, globally and even a majority in
the USA itself would condemn another war of aggression by the USA. This has nothing to
do with the wishes of the Kushner, Bolton, Pompeo Trump government and its shadow puppeteers
Netanyahu and Adelson. The same is true for Venezuela and Syria.
The Anglosphere, with the USA as its hegemonic leader, is caught in its own life-long
delusions, its own mythology from the British Empire to WW2, its decade spanning structural
and fundamental mistakes and errors and flaws. It's not the first Empire to be in this
situation and it won't be the last Empire who will have its own downfall accelerated by it
all.
Liberal democracy is a failed, a false and a falsified political model turned into a
post-political ideology of an increasingly undemocratic establishment. The Europeans do not
want it, the Africans do not want it, the Asians do not want it and increasingly the citizens
of the USA and Great Britain do not want it. Trump and Brexit are indeed indicators for
this.
Because people are communal, they do not wish to be atomized individuals. And nobody wants
social-democracy either for that matter. They do not solve problems, they do not provide
people with what they need and they have no truly inspiring visions to offer either. And
that's why the future lies in nations and peoples. Not because there is a threat of
"fascism". And I think when it comes to the erosion of the rule of law and democracy being a
means for the demos, the establishment has done absolutely everything itself to make this the
reality for the citizens in the USA and EU.
@dearieme The false claims about Trump are intended to deflect from the Truth.
dasFuherer Obama started down the road to Facism directing the SS/FBI to conduct
surveillance and enforce political orthodoxy. If the transfer of power to dasFuherer H.
Clinton had taken place successfully we would be living in a Facist nation by this point.
Authoritarian Left National Socialism (Nazism), also known as Globalism, is a threat to
the Christian Citizens of the U.S. The Democratic party openly embraces these National
Socialist / Globalist goals. The Facist Stormtroopers of Antifa are their version of the
Hitler Youth.
@Paul "control of the media and the crushing of criticism; slogans promising everything
to everybody; a promotion of force as a means to an end leading to violence, militarism and
war.
The list could go on to include less significant traits such as a liking for public
displays of strength and popularity at rallies and parades; a liking also for gigantic
building projects as the physical embodiment of power."
Trump hasn't conquered any nations, while Emperor Obama conquered Honduras, Libya, Somalia,
Ukraine, and tried to conquer Yemen, Turkey, and Syria. Obama also expanded the drone
assassination campaign, to include US citizens. Obama restarted the Cold war by demonizing
Russia and dispatching American troops to Russia's borders with new military bases in the
Baltic states.
Control of the media? Trump has none, while the media cheered Obama all the time, even
when he imprisoned journalists. They want to impeach Trump, but have no specific reason. I
can list a dozens reasons to impeach any of our past Presidents. Finally, whenever Trump
tries to ease tensions with Russia and North Korea, or pull troops from Syria, he is attacked
by the media and Democrats.
Trump is no saint, but this article is absurdly biased; typical of a corporate media
figure.
Fascism (A police state created by the wedding of corporate and state powers) has been coming
to America along various lines for quite some time but it's not the "nationalism" that we
need to worry about. In fact our tendencies to run fascistic have moved quickest while
nationalism evaporated.
The US is a divided nation, there is barely a "nation" here anymore, so we can stop
worrying about nationalism. We are no longer a single nation and haven't been for some time.
Trump isn't going to change that. LOL We are more in danger from increasing polarity ripping
us apart than we are nationalism uniting us into some new Reich.
Trump has at best hit 40% approval ratings in the polls, he barely holds onto power and in
fact lost the house. That's not a dictator in the making. There is zero danger that he will
unite the country either, that isn't going to happen.
As for socially that one is really a joke. There has never been a nation on Earth that is
less "Socially" fascist, NEVER. How a nation like ours, where you can literally self identify
as any thing you want, would be socially fascist is beyond me, yet that is actually what is
being described.
The fascism I'm worried about comes in the form of Crony Capitalism spawning endless wars
for profit while cracking down on liberty at home with the Patriot act and all the rest.
That's the creeping fascism we all should be worried about and many of us were. We voted for
Trump as the only alternative to that very problem.
No, no, no, missing the point. A 'Fascist' is someone saying something that the rich and
powerful don't want said.
So when Donald Trump said that he wanted to stop us from wasting trillions of dollars on
pointless winless foreign wars that serve only to enrich politically-connected defense
contractors, that was Fascist and Rascist and Literally Hitler.
Trump got beaten down, and without consulting Congress, launched a completely unjustified
and stupid missile attack on Syria, and suddenly he was 'presidential.' So you see, a leader
taking power into his own hands and running roughshod over the rule of law, that's
'Democracy' – as long as he's doing what the rich want done.
Bottom line: now that Trump has morphed into "Swamp Thing," there will be political
theater and screaming and howling, but it's all for show. It's a circus.
Trumpism is a mixture of kosher Americana and an apotheosis of the sharp vulgarian
businessman as politician as opposed to the hero or the visionary leader as statesman. It is
a kind of halfhearted bourgeoisie reaction to the extreme cultural Marxism and social
engineering, as well as a slavish adherence to Zionism. Its so called "national spirit" may
be more exemplified by a hexagram or skull cap on top of its figurehead leader, as opposed to
a legionary's helmet, Fuehrer's cap or Latin Cross. It is almost the polar opposite of the
eponymous Fascism of Mussolini, in which the Fascist Council dictated to the cartels, not
vice versa, and Il Duce was in charge and not a boardroom of soulless corporate
internationalists . Fascism can cut both ways- it can be used by an authoritarian leader to
unify the state and nation or it can be used by corporate oligarchs and their figurehead to
destroy the nation and its people.
Trumpism is even further removed from National Socialism and the Fuehrer. A man of the
people arose from humble origins on his own merits and reputation for courage under fire and
engineered both the greatest economic recovery and most spectacular renaissance of national
pride and dignity in recorded history. Hitler was not driven by personal vanity to see the
"H" of his name in lights, nor was he a crooked vulgarian beholden to casino pimps and
subterranean international Jews. Had National Socialism been allowed to flourish and had not
been destroyed by the world Sanhedrin and its shabbos goyim camp followers, Europe would in
all likelihood be a far cleaner, culturally vibrant and thriving culturally radiant center of
power for the entire world and especially its own far flung diaspora.
Trump could have been a true, independent nationalist leader but he scorned that role and
has largely turned on his base. While he is still the lesser of the two evils compared to
most of the Democratic automaton and pervert contenders, he certainly knows on which side his
shekels are buttered.
"... A sincere question: who is running the CIA and on whose behalf? ..."
"... They consider us the people, their enemy. We are the 'enemy within', because as we become increasingly aware of our politicians' criminality any action we take may threaten the status quo. ..."
"... Just because Americans don't tend to care about anything that happens beyond their own borders doesn't mean the rest of the world can live with the same blissful ignorance. ..."
"... The NSA scandal has made us realize that the US regards us as second-rated citizens who are nondeserving of the 'special protections' that Anglo-speaking countries do. ..."
"... This is extremely telling about Obama's continued failure to discern good character in his aides and cabinet. His administration has been a shambles largely due to his inability to surround himself with good people. ..."
"... I guess so, as we all know that the CIA always tried to silent war opponents. This had been largely documented about Vietnam opponents to the War on US soil. ..."
"... The CIA is now a discredited organization run by proven liars. When will Congress do something about it? Answer -- never. They are all being blackmailed. ..."
"... The CIA is completely out of control. This begs the question, as to why do, or should, American citizen vote for candidates when those candidates are effectively being 'managed' and spied on by people in the CIA. Senators in both houses are not making 'decisions' the CIA is. ..."
"... Yes and the only politician who has called for the abolition of the CIA is Ron Paul. ..."
"... The NSA isn't hindering your movements as you are not a danger to the status quo. You can keep getting blasted at your BBQ's and coming online to defend the indefensible, you're not a threat. But it's not about you. It's about the people who are in a position to challenge the system. This can include anti-war activists, judges, politicians and journalists. ..."
They consider us the people, their enemy. We are the 'enemy within', because as we become increasingly aware of our politicians'
criminality any action we take may threaten the status quo.
leaders haven't been voted into office for a while now - they're rigged into office - from the lowly dog catcher to the president
- and its happening all over the world.
If you take the easy way now, you will take the easy way in the future. This not a sandlot baseball game here. These are high-
powered people , who are responsible for matters extremely operant to the people of our country, and it must be admitted, the
world.
To simply brush off these serious breaches of Government procedure (law) would serve to perpetuate the Executive Branch intrusions
into the business of the Legislative Branch.
Separation of the powers is a time-honored method of setting up a government that has kept us 'moving along' for quite
awhile now. Most of its problems stem from the populace placing too much trust in their elected officials .
It is everyone's responsibility to collectively maintain our government. It was never the intention of our founders that our
leaders become reclusive despots: from today's vantage point, we can see this. It is a short walk to realize where the blame should
be laid. Up and on your way to no future.
Just because Americans don't tend to care about anything that happens beyond their own borders doesn't mean the rest of the
world can live with the same blissful ignorance.
The NSA scandal has made us realize that the US regards us as second-rated citizens who are nondeserving of the 'special
protections' that Anglo-speaking countries do.
I find it absolutely shocking that this guy's dismissal is still debatable. Should be a no-brainer is any democracy
In the UK and USA these spooks backed by politicians and civil servants are getting way out of hand. Having the technology to
do things doesn't provide the need or right to do such things. They are getting to the point where they are "protecting" us from
the very people and system they have become.
although the White House indicated its support for a man who has been one of Barack Obama's most trusted security aides.
This is extremely telling about Obama's continued failure to discern good character in his aides and cabinet. His administration
has been a shambles largely due to his inability to surround himself with good people.
I guess so, as we all know that the CIA always tried to silent war opponents. This had been largely documented about Vietnam
opponents to the War on US soil.
They're all fuc@#$g rogue. Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Who polices the police? No one apparently. They
and all their UK counterparts will walk away from this unscathed. If the heat gets a little too warm just play your joker, 'Terrorism'.
The CIA is now a discredited organization run by proven liars. When will Congress do something about it? Answer -- never.
They are all being blackmailed.
Your state can imprison anyone it wants, for as long as it wants, without having to justify it in any way... hell they are not
even required to let relatives know. That is a police state. The US is operating what effectively are concentration camps all
over the place, Guantanamo being the flagship.
The CIA is completely out of control. This begs the question, as to why do, or should, American citizen vote for candidates when
those candidates are effectively being 'managed' and spied on by people in the CIA. Senators in both houses are not making 'decisions'
the CIA is.
Quite how the CIA, White House or any other government body think that they have any credibility regarding any matter, is amazing.
I JUST PUT A LIST OF QUESTIONS ON MY TIME LINE THIS SHOULD KEEP THE SPY NETWORK BUSY FOR A WHILE ! BUT THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING
THAT MAKES SENSE ANYWAY ; THEY ONLY HAVE A 30 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET ; BUT CANNOT TELL US WHAT HAPPENED TO MH370 MALAYSIAN AIRPLANE
! WOW ! SOME SPY NETWORK ! IT 'S EASY FOR THEM TO SCREW WITH US ; BECAUSE WE ARE EVERYDAY MARKS !
If the United States government doesn't even govern by popular mandate, it certainly won't give a fuck about anyone's respect,
dear fellow internet commentator.
The penalties for lying under oath are quite strict and can include up to 5 years of prison time. But nobody is willing to go
after these guys, they have too much information on too many people. The day the US congress voted for the patriot act was the
last day of their democracy.
What exactly does a CIA member have to do to get arrested, prosecuted and convicted for an action inside the USA?
It is not spying on Congress. It it spying on the Supreme court, or killing a Senator? Do they walk away free after assassinating
their own president? Do they need to do more?
The NSA isn't hindering your movements as you are not a danger to the status quo. You can keep getting blasted at your BBQ's and
coming online to defend the indefensible, you're not a threat. But it's not about you. It's about the people who are in a position
to challenge the system. This can include anti-war activists, judges, politicians and journalists.
Everyone who matters can be
kept inline with blackmail and for public figures it can be the smallest thing. Recently, during a primary, a candidate lost as
questions were raised about the fact he had checked in the a mental care facility. He probably had a breakdown and needed to be
observed for a couple of days. This piece of information would be easy to pick up with the various NSA programmes.
If this candidate
had the same views as you, this little fact would not have been released but I believe he was a defender of your constitution
and that could cause problems for the criminal regime you now live under.
Snooping is poison in a democracy. Your system was built so that it had self correction and could hence adapt to new situations
and constantly improve. This served Americans well for many years, but it has ended.
Feinstein and the word "hope" do not belong in one and the same sentence. She along with her fellow conspirators in the intelligence
committee are the ones that have been green-lighting this fascism for years. It's like expecting John McCain to repeal the Patriot
Act.
People like Feinstein are chosen to oversee mass surveillance for the simple reason that they are old, completely technologically
illiterates who can be easily fooled or if need be blackmailed through their extensive business empires
.
If man were wise, he would gauge the true worth of anything by its usefulness and
appropriateness to his life.
-- Michel de Montaigne, Complete Book of Essays , Book 11, Essay 12, Page 543
For your consideration, the modern idiot in a habitat of prime viral fecundity; after
centuries of western civilization spreading toxic oppressive imperialism through contrived
financial schemes and brutish warfare the dream of global neoliberalism has come to full fruition
where all personal responsibility for actions of selfish business interests has been discretely
removed from the profiteers and accountability placed upon all powerful implacable nation states.
As a result what has been set into motion is the perfect bewildering breeding ground for the
whims of the idiot mind to thrive. Complexity is artificially created in financial systems,
legalese, and bureaucratic nomenclature to obfuscate the deceptions and allow the idiots in
charge to more deftly carry out their scams on the general public..
What is before us now are the death throes of capitalism, which is oddly enough also
capitalism at its apogee with a precipitous descent ahead due to its profound unsustainability. A
common analogy of our times is referencing going off a cliff of some kind to describe the present
trajectory of this idiot society, e.g. an unstoppable train with no brakes going over a cliff, or
Wile E. Coyote having already gone over the cliff and simply hasn't bothered to look down yet to
notice he's run out of terra-firma. Whatever variation of the analogy chosen, the point is that
we know the cliff is there, but the collective state of our idiocy doesn't seem to care too much.
It has other idiot priorities it deems more necessary to care about, so it plows ahead despite
knowing it has run out of track.
This state of being has of course been intentionally manufactured by the idiots in charge. The
direct derivation of widespread capitalist ideology creates faux democracies run by political
stooges who are sycophantic to corporate power amounting to an orchestrated production of
bureaucratic theater where everyone affected by the reach of this system catches the virus of
idiocy and finds themselves at various stages of recovery. Each person inculcated into the cult
of the idiot via institutional systems is ensnared by the traps set by boardroom bandits who
conspire to break the will of the people by attempting to normalize that which isn't normal, and
comport the natural better intentions of the masses to enrich the loosely formed global
capitalist state.
Their scheme is simplistic yet highly effective; engineer a society based on a need for money
issued from a central source and then see to it that money is always in scarce supply for all but
an elite class. The effect on the common person is a state of perpetual fear and desperation
which allows for the masses to be easily controlled, always servile to the money. The idiotic
mind is then molded by saturating the senses in a simulacrum overlay of reality which obscures
our real values, uses our love against us, and reforms us into the idiot that the idiots in
charge wish us to be so we may be easily exploited once the will is broken, hence the average
human animal won't put up much resistance when they are asked to do the cruel and often
ecologically ruinous labor for an elite class. After the institutional indoctrination the hope
for a better world becomes a futile prospect with the specter of our own conscious/cognitive
deficiencies looming large over our collective actions. And certainly any would-be paradise or
substantially better world for all, which theoretically could come into being, will never emerge
so long as the agenda of the idiot prevails over higher wisdom.
A melancholic realization of our predicament is to understand we are trapped in a death spiral
under idiotic reign where some horrific form of collapse is nearly inevitable due to our own
inability to change the compulsory-destructive- unsustainable-status quo. We are damned to
this present state because the idiots learned long ago that all it takes to control a herd of
humans to create a self reinforcing system of subservience. This system is instantiated by
fostering dependency in a hierarchical social system where a cadre of idiots seize control and
installs safeguards to protect their system making it intractable with feedback loops of rewards
and punishments, and each time the people begin to wise up to the plots of the idiots in charge
they are slapped back into depraved imbecility unless they want to endure more of the whip which
power will see to it is all that lies before them if they attempt to stray too much from the
desired course of the idiots in charge.
The idiot is inherently an idiot because they are motivated by idiotic whims. At the core of
the idiot are misplaced values leading to misplaced priorities that lead them to take up
activities and belief systems which are antithetical to their own contentment, and typically not
only are these types of activities a path to nowhere for them but also have added externalities
which make their actions corrosive to all life as well. Inevitably their facile search for
greater pleasure, status, and legacy damns not only them to their own personal hell, but has the
potential to damn all others impacted by their decisions chasing after shallow endeavors.
The idiot mind argues their positions with a barrage of overlapping nested logical fallacies
couched in reductionism and baked down to simplistic one liners which buries the truth so far
down it takes an hour to fully unpack a single sentence. "Everything is a cycle", "Communism has
killed 100 million people", "Capitalism has led to the greatest increase in quality of life",
"Guns don't kill people, people do" – twisted distractive arguments ignoring a compendium
of logical antecedents all purposed to defend capitalist propaganda people have either
conveniently or unwittingly absorbed and requires time and a calm dialectical conversation to
break apart the conflated lies. However the conditioned idiot mind isn't really interested in
hearing the counterarguments to these claims. They only want a simple reassurance that their
previously held positions are correct because admitting one is wrong is painful and requires a
degree of humility, a virtue which the idiot has in short supply. And if one attempts to fully
explain the full breadth of the argument the more hardened idiots will proclaim that if one
cannot manufacture the counterargument in an equally terse and trite statement it must be wrong.
The idiot mind will ultimately dismiss the opposing arguments with laconic stupidity and they'll
quickly come to rest on the premise that we can "agree to disagree", or they'll claim on any
point in which they might potentially be wrong is simply that the truth may be in the middle
somewhere, or they'll suddenly become spurious epistemological philosophers and question what can
truly ever be known?
To be glib and facile is a common feature of the idiot and entails not thinking about
arguments in proper scope or with valid supporting warrants, or to casually perhaps conveniently
misattribute the root of a problem which in fact may be be a product of a deeper problem(s). The
idiot sees before them only what they desire, and their desire so often blinds them. The idiot is
jealous, competitive and desires material stuff and power while sometimes not even questioning
why they want what they believe they want. Like why do idiots care so much about immigrants? If
they had their border wall built and actually were able to keep out 100% of illegal immigration
their lives would not appreciable improve in any manner, there would be no sudden spike in their
pay or offering of jobs. There's a long line of issues people think they care about that if
corrected would not make much of a difference, and some of them being symptoms of deeper
problems.
A rich entitled idiot will spend countless hours trying to think of ways to make more money
and for what? More sexual partners? A new boat? Bigger house? A private jet? What exactly is
gained and why is that worthwhile? And a war-mongering bureaucrat like Trump's national security
advisor John Bolton, does anyone think he actually cares so much about the security of the US
that he feels it necessary to try to attack Iran and Venezuela, and what would be accomplished
when they are toppled? Even if he admitted the true reason he wants to attack these countries,
for economic neoliberal expansion and to plunder their resources, what is gained even then? What
is the end game there? Why do any of these folk who already are much wealthier than the common
person and also nearing the end of their lives feel it so absolutely necessary to impose their
will violently on others? The results will only end like every military conflict does, with
throngs of innocent people dead and the world no more peaceful or better off than it was when
they started the conflict.
And what exactly is gained if an already wealthy US gains more wealth? What happens? Who is
happier? Who is better off? Almost nobody. Why they do what they do is an insanity and spreads
discord throughout the world, as Hans Koning stated in his book Columbus: His Enterprise
regarding the Spanish empire's plundering of the Americas:
For all the gold and silver stolen and shipped to Spain did not make the Spanish people
richer. It gave their kings an edge in the balance of power for a time, a chance to hire more
mercenary soldiers for their wars. They ended up losing those wars anyway, and all that was
left was a deadly inflation, a starving population, the rich richer, the poor poorer, and a
ruined peasant class.
This is the typical result of imperialism. Always has been. Thus the elites imposing their
selfish will on others doesn't do anything of value and never has. This realization doesn't stop
the present idiots in charge from doing their nefarious deeds or cause a hint self introspection,
the idiot mind is a busied mind supremely confident they are correct. And once they have a head
of steam in a direction they will most always barrel on forward out of nothing more than foolish
pride reassuring themselves that whatever minor gains they may receive from any heinous act they
take up is worth it, while often taking the shortest, most brutish path, to acquire more of what
they desire but don't need in any conceivable way. They don't bother to think of the
ramifications or the pain they cause; they just do because they feel they have the power to do
so, consequences be damned.
And the facile machinations of the modern idiot in western countries doesn't seem to want to
stop doing even the most frivolous of activities in order to stop the bleeding of mother Gaia.
Any capitalist desire is of utmost importance to be maintained to the idiots in charge. They feel
like it's their right in their ostensibly free market to use their money to engage in whatever
spectacle or peculiarity they wish no matter the consequence and won't budge or go without one
less triviality, not one less light buzzing over Times Square. Not a single casino can be
sacrificed. It would be a tragedy if there was one less assault rifle rolling off an assembly
line. An impossibility to go with one less cruise ship, or one less all you can eat buffet, not
one less computer server warehouse storing useless surveillance information, not one less gaming
console, or Hollywood car crash scene, or all night convenience store or fast food restaurant Not
a thing they will do to impede what their idiot facile minds believe is freedom. To the idiot
it's somehow all a worthwhile endeavor despite if it means inducing abrupt climate change or
killing off the majority of the flora and fauna on the planet. The idiots simply won't stop being
idiots until some force greater than them makes them.
And to diminish the rapid onset of climate change the idiot mind speaks of the money needed to
do so. As if human will was solely reliant on convincing the idiots in charge to create more
currency for the most pressing issue humans have perhaps ever faced. The idiot ignores history of
Native Americans who primarily used a gift economy for likely thousands of years in comparative
peace and were more advanced than most modern idiots give them credit, certainly leaps and bounds
more advanced socially. But in modernity and throughout the history of western civilization money
has been a tool of power and created through loans and enslaving people into debt in the billions
of dollars everyday for the most absurd reasons. But debate in the public sphere continually
revolves around the idea of how can we afford to maintain our highly destructive system in the
face of anthropogenic Armageddon. They insist it's an impossibility that a bunch of corrupt
bankers can't create the money as they do all the time and an equally impossible idea that
perhaps we free ourselves entirely from these shackles and abandon the concept of money
altogether to do what is necessary through the bonds of trust and lessen the damage to our
environment so we have a habitat to live in while also freeing ourselves from cycle of imperial
idiocy created through the use of currency. Truly the reasons for which we are destroying this
planet are idiotic, and the things that are stopping the people from fully revolting against the
idiots in charge are also idiotic considering what is on the line.
Our cultural heritage in western civilization is rooted in idiocy, driven by elite idiots in
charge with an agenda to make the inability to discern the difference between a higher truth and
an outright lie a widespread epidemic so they can convince the masses to do the stupid things the
idiots in charge desire. Through tyranny and manipulation the idiot powers that be have
manufactured a world which has planted seeds of doubt in otherwise unassailable truths. And
perhaps this is why so many people in the west have sought out wisdom within eastern philosophy
and shamanistic societies. They seek to find truth that is shunned by the modern western mind,
and to understand truth one must disengage from this toxic culture so they can remember once
again what the truth looks like.
The idiocy is compounded by an ironic competitive pride in their intellectual abilities where
one idiot proclaims to be smarter and more qualified than another based on idiotic criteria. Like
the spurious intelligence in being able to out maneuver another capitalist through underhanded
means, or exhibiting the callousness to exploit employees more than their competitors. Or the
supposed craftiness in brown-nosing up to one's superiors in a place of work and appearing more
subservient than coworkers as to be awarded a promotion. These are not acts of intelligence but
acts of one who is making an obsequious race to the bottom and proclaiming themselves champions
for their willingness to sink to lower levels of deception to achieve their so called success.
However there is no success when the entire ecology of our world is recklessly destroyed so their
ideas of success can be had. There is no success when needless wars and mass human suffering are
imposed so their ill conceived goals can be achieved. The idiot's idea of success is in actuality
grand treachery.
Examples of the idiot's falsely contrived ideas of success are everywhere. The unemployment
rate is seemingly quite low at 3.6%, but what does this mean when so many are excluded out of the
equation once they haven't had any employment for a long enough amount of time, and further, what
is considered employment in many cases doesn't provide the ability to afford a roof over your
head. And who cares if the unemployment number is low when the end product of these jobs also
makes species extinction and climate change worse. What good are these jobs when they create so
much human misery that lives have little value to all those who are stuck in the labor. And who
cares if a metric like the GDP goes up if it is achieved through barbarous imperialism, or
grossly overcharging for medical care/housing/education, or by creating slave like conditions for
people thousands of miles away so corporations can glean more profits? This is again is not
success, it is but the apex of disdainful human treachery.
The idiot is constantly seeking validation externally from others and never generates their
own validation through self acceptance. Thus they are ravenous attention seekers, and will
inevitably sniff out all things that garner attention for them so they create awards shows,
diplomas with haughty ceremonies, important sounding titles of all sorts to manufacture the
facade of their worth. If an action is harmful to others in their trek for external validation
it's not of any great importance to the idiot, the worthiness of action is again determined by if
it's beneficial to them and exclusionary society comprised of other idiots so it compliments
their high sense of themselves which their ego assures them is valid.
The idiot believes all things are impossible except what currently exists. They are
exceptional at meeting the criteria for the definition for insanity. They do the same thing over
and over and expect different results. The idiot does not understand history even when they read
it since cultural and self reinforced myopia has rotted away the plasticity of thought in their
minds so what they take away from the reading of history is only what is convenient to their
present system of thought. The idiot believes in social systems like representative democracies,
centralized government in nation states, courts, and prisons that cannot cure the simplest of
society's ailments over thousands of years of use, but to the idiot just one more election is
going to make all the difference. One more go around the installed idiotic system with idiotic
desires at the root is going to change course and suddenly become wise. They believe by just
replacing the current idiots in charge they will be able to cause the change that is so
desperately needed, but like a hiker refusing to admit they are lost and continuing down the
trail out of hubris they are only further compounding the problem by insisting they aren't lost.
And our society is most certainly lost, and it's a long way back to the trail that leads to
redemption and a place we actually want to be, which we get further away from each day we stay on
our present course.
And after all our idiotic overcomplicated plots and schemes, they are but to mask simple
truths the idiot facade tries so desperately to avoid; the inner torments of being afraid of not
being good enough, not measuring up to our peers, not meeting arbitrary expectations we either
accept from others or set for ourselves, or quite simply feeling like we are not worthy of love.
So we play these pointless high stakes games which have a rewards as meaningless and worthless as
a plastic trophy just to prove our worth. The idiot is a temporal state of being, although many
are finer long term examples of displaying the behaviors of the idiot; however none of us are the
perfect idiot. To avoid the affectations of being in an idiotic state it takes conscious effort
to live our lives moment to moment with authenticity, to be in a state of awareness of our
actions, to always be willing to suffer for something worthwhile and to be consistently well
reasoned examiners of what constitutes something worthwhile.
OPSW proved to be a gang of a despicable, completely bought by the USA bottomfeeders. Looks like they are now a part
of "Intergity Initiative"
At this point credibility of the USA and UK experts on the topic is not zero, it is negative: they systematically generate
false flags.
Truth be told after Skripals affair the level of credibility of the UK government and expects is far below zero in any case.
This is just a gang of despicable warmongers.
Notable quotes:
"... If SST readers are confused by OPCW's constantly shifting explanations for why the Final Report on the Douma incident excluded the Engineering Assessment, they're not the only ones. ..."
"... Unfortunately for whoever thought up this defence, it is explicitly contradicted by both the Interim Report (published last July) and the Final Report, which state that the objective of the engineering studies was to evaluate how the cylinders arrived in position. ..."
Comments on official response to the release of the Engineering
Assessment of the Douma cylinders Paul McKeigue, David Miller, Jake Mason, Piers
Robinson
This post comments on the response to our
release of the Executive Summary of the Engineering Assessment of the Douma cylinders on 13
May 2018. All emphases in quoted passages are added by us. After OPCW had confirmed the
document to be genuine, the story was covered extensively by Russian media.
An informed commentary by Professor
Hiroyuki Aoyama in Tokyo has been published on Yahoo News's Japanese site. The only coverage in
western corporate media has been by Peter Hitchens in the
Mail on Sunday , Robert Fisk in the
Independent and Tucker Carlson on
Fox .
Other journalists who have been in
touch with us have told us that their stories were spiked by editors. As expected, the story
has reached much larger numbers through websites and videos that have disseminated it.
2
OPCW's response to the release of the document
2.1 Official response
In an email dated 11 May and shown to us, Deepti Choubey, the head of OPCW Public Affairs,
wrote:
Thank you for reaching out to us. It is exclusively through the Fact-Finding Mission, set
up in 2014, that the OPCW establishes facts surrounding allegations of use of toxic chemicals
for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic. On 1 March 2019, the OPCW has issued its
final and only valid official report, signed by the Director-General, regarding the incident
that took place in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018. The document you shared with
us is not part of any of the material produced by the FFM. The individual mentioned in the
document has never been a member of the FFM .
The OPCW establishes facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for
hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic through the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which
was set up in 2014. The OPCW Technical Secretariat reaffirms that the FFM complies with
established methodologies and practices to ensure the integrity of its findings. The FFM
takes into account all available, relevant, and reliable information and analysis within the
scope of its mandate to determine its findings. Per standard practice, the FFM draws
expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed. All
information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final
report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018. On 1 March
2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.
Per OPCW rules and regulations, and in order to ensure the privacy, safety, and security
of personnel, the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the
Technical Secretariat. Pursuant to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical
Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the
document in question. At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate requests for interviews.
This was taken as confirmation that the document was genuine.
2.2 Unofficial
briefings
Following OPCW's confirmation on 16 May that the document we had released was genuine, two
individuals in the UK whose communications have supported UK government policy on Syria
favoring regime change – Professor Scott Lucas of Birmingham University, and the former
Guardian journalist Brian Whitaker – began reporting that they had inside information on
how the Engineering Assessment had been excluded from the Final Report.
Henderson was writing what was, in effect, a dissenting assessment from that of most of
the OPCW's team and consultant experts. His findings were considered but were a minority
opinion as final report was written.
He followed this with a remarkably indiscreet
tweet asserting that "I know
how OPCW review process was conducted and what place Henderson's assessment had in it." When
challenged to explain his
connection to OPCW, Lucas did not answer. Hitchens
reported on 24 May that OPCW
Public Affairs had refused to comment on whether Lucas was receiving authorised briefings from
OPCW.
2.2.2 Whitaker
Whitaker was at first more circumspect about his sources,
reporting on 16 May that:
One story circulating in the chemical weapons community (though not confirmed) is that
Henderson had wanted to join the FFM and got rebuffed but was then given permission to do
some investigating on the sidelines of the FFM.
Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat extended Whitaker's version
with:
This reporting by @Brian_Whit on the leaked Douma report that the conspiracy theorists and
chemical weapon denialists are so excited about is consistent with what I'm hearing . Looks
like they all got played by a disgruntled OPCW employee.
In an
article
posted on 24 May, Whitaker was more explicit in reporting the spin of "an informed source" on
the Engineering Assessment.
an informed source has now shed some light on it. The key point here is the FFM's terms of
reference. Its basic role was to establish facts about the alleged attack, and it was not
allowed to apportion blame -- that is the job of the OPCW's newly-created Investigation and
Identification Team (IIT). Although the FFM determined that the cylinders were probably
dropped from the air, the published report (in line with its mandate) omitted any mention of
the obvious implication that they had been dropped by regime aircraft. According to the
informed source, when Henderson's assessment was reviewed there were concerns that it came
too close to attributing responsibility, and thus fell outside the scope of the FFM's
mandate. Whether or not that was the right decision, there was no doubt that Henderson's
assessment did fall within the mandate of the new Investigation and Identification Team. For
that reason, according to the source, he was advised to pass it to the IIT instead -- and he
did so.
Unless this account was entirely fabricated, it could only have come from someone with close
knowledge of how the Final Report had been prepared. A subsequent
tweet from Whitaker on 25 May,
presumably channelling the same source, confirmed that "Henderson and others" had been in
Douma:
Henderson and others did go to Douma to provide temporary support to the FFM, but they
were not official members of the FFM.
2.3 What the channelling of off-the-record briefings tells us
It is likely that (at least on this occasion) Lucas and Whitaker are telling the truth, and
that they have been briefed by someone with close knowledge of how the FFM Final Report was
prepared. If these briefings had not been authorised, OPCW Public Affairs could easily have
responded to Hitchens's question with a standard statement reiterating that "there is no
further public information on this matter" and that this extended to off-the-record briefings.
We would expect OPCW press officers to be reluctant to issue further statements that could
subsequently be shown to be false.
Like cellular biologists who perturb a complex system and measure its outputs, we can infer
from these observations the existence of a pathway. This pathway connects the production of
OPCW reports on alleged chemical attacks in Syria with a network of communicators in the UK who
in different ways have promoted the cause of regime change in Syria since 2012. It is evident
that Lucas and Whitaker are output nodes of this pathway. From August 2012, Whitaker as the
Guardian's Middle East editor
promoted Higgins from obscure beginnings as a blogger to become a widely-cited source on
the Syrian conflict. Whitaker was the first journalist to devote an
article to
attacking the Working Group, in February 2018 when its only collective output had been a brief
blog post.
It is of course possible that OPCW management for some procedural reason was unable to
provide further information on the record, and sought to disseminate an accurate version of
events via off-the-record briefings. But the choice of such highly partisan commentators as
Lucas and Whitaker as channels inevitably calls into question the good faith of whoever
provided these briefings, and undermines any remaining pretence to impartiality on the part of
OPCW management.
2.4 Discrepancies between versions of OPCW's response
An established method in investigative journalism is to compare official versions and to
infer from discrepancies what they are trying to hide. On 11 May OPCW Public Affairs stated
that "The document you shared with us is not part of any of the material produced by the FFM.
The individual mentioned in the document has never been a member of the FFM". After we pointed
out that these two statements were provably false – the external collaboration on the
engineering assessment of the Douma cylinders must have been authorised by OPCW, and Henderson
could hardly have been in Damascus on a tourist visa – they were not repeated on the
record. By 16 May OPCW Public Affairs had formulated a new policy: "Per OPCW rules and
regulations the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the
Technical Secretariat." A more subtle version of Henderson's role was then channelled through
Lucas and Whitaker: "minority opinion", "on the sidelines" and elaborated by Higgins as
"disgruntled OPCW employee"'. Between 16 May and 25 May the story channelled through Whitaker
changed from "Henderson had wanted to join the FFM and got rebuffed but was then given
permission to do some investigating on the sidelines of the FFM." to admitting that "Henderson
and others" were in Douma "to provide temporary support to the FFM".
On 24 May Whitaker's informed source admits that "Henderson's assessment was reviewed" for
the Final Report, no longer attempting to maintain that the Engineering Assessment was not part
of the FFM's process. If we strip away the flannel from this latest story, it appears to be
accurate. The "informed source" tells us that the Engineering Assessment was excluded from the
Final Report not because its technical analysis had been rebutted, but because the conclusion
that the cylinders had been placed in position rather than dropped from the air would
necessarily have attributed responsibility for the incident to the opposition .
The argument that the mandate of the FFM prevented it from endorsing the Engineering
Assessment's conclusion is easily refuted as a matter of logic. Announcing the release of the
Final Report, OPCW
stated that "The FFM's mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals
as weapons have been used in Syria." In Douma this could be reduced to deciding between two
alternatives: (1) the gas cylinders were dropped from the air, implying that they were used as
chemical weapons; (2) the cylinders were placed in position, implying that the incident was
staged and that no chemical attack had occurred. Although to conclude that alternative (2) was
correct would implicate the opposition, this would not be attribution of blame for a chemical
attack but rather a determination that chemical weapons had not been used.
Clearly a verdict that the alleged chemical attack had been staged would have been
unacceptable to the French government, which had joined in the US-led missile attack on 14
April 2018. We can surmise that the Chief of Cabinet of OPCW, Sébastien Braha, who
(according to his Linkedin profile ) is still in post as
a French diplomat, would have been in a difficult position if he had allowed the FFM to release
a report that reached this conclusion. He would be in an even more difficult position if he
were to allow the newly-established
Investigation and
Identification Team (IIT), which also reports to him, to overturn the conclusions of the
Final Report and report that the alleged chemical attack was staged. Even if Braha's failure to
update his online profile with the date of leaving his diplomatic post is an oversight, this
would still be a conflict of interest based on the OECD definition of what "a reasonable
person, knowing the relevant facts, would conclude". As we have noted, OPCW appears to have no
arrangements for managing conflicts of interest. Until the governance and working practices of
OPCW are radically reformed, it is hard to see how neutral observers can have confidence in the
impartiality of the FFM or the IIT.
3 Government responses to an alleged chlorine attack on
19 May3.1 Reports of the alleged attack
Possible allusions to the release of the Engineering Assessment on 13 May can be
discerned in government responses to a report of an alleged chlorine attack in Idlib on 19
May. The earliest report , mentioning three missiles or
shells loaded with chlorine was from an Arabic-language website named ebaa.news at
11.01 am Syrian time. The location was given as Kubina Hill in Kabbana village, on the border
with Lattakia. At 12.46 am Syrian time Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (HdBG)
tweeted
Appears to be a chlorine attack from Regime artillery shells in Jose Al Shugour village -
4 casualties being evacuated for treatment
"Jose Al Shugour village" is presumably the town of Jisr Al-Shughour. Rami Abdulrahman's
Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights reported on 22 May that four fighters were treated in hospital after they
"suffocated in the intense and violent shelling by the regime forces, within caves and
trenches" but did not endorse the claims of a chlorine attack, noting that the source of this
story was "the Media platform of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham". The story was
elaborated in
a Fox News report on 23 May that quoted a "Dr Ahmad" from Idlib, who reported that he had
treated the casualties. Fox News also quoted Nidal Shikhani of the Chemical Violations Documentation
Centre Syria (CVDCS).
A possible match for the identity of "Dr Ahmad" is Dr Ahmad al-Dbis,
quoted by Reuters on 4 May 2019 as Safety and Security Manager for the Union of Medical
Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM), describing airstrikes on Idlib and northern Hama. Since
2016 both HdBG
and the
CBRN Task Force that he set up in 2013 have been affiliated to UOSSM. A
report from 2014 quotes a "Dr Ahmad" described as a medic trained by HdBG for the CBRN Task
Force. CVDCS is an
NGO that has worked closely with the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission since 2015 to provide
purported eyewitnesses for interview in Syria, originally established in 2012 as the
Office of Documentation of the Chemical File in Syria , and later registered in Brussels as
a non-profit company named Same Justice. This company never complied with the legal requirement
to file accounts, and went into
liquidation on 27 February 2019.
The ebaa.news site appears to be closely linked to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS),
frequently quoting HTS spokesmen and sometimes reporting exclusive stories obtained from HTS.
On 31 May 2018 HTS was
designated
by the US Department of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and a Specially Designated
Global Terrorist. The Coordinator for Counterterrorism noted that this designation "serves
notice that the United States is not fooled by this al-Qa'ida affiliate's attempt to rebrand
itself." In conclusion, the provenance of this story of a chemical attack on 19 May is dubious,
and the extent to which the sources are independent of one another is not clear.
British experts are this morning investigating a suspected chlorine attack by al-Assad in
Idlib. If it is proved, will she lead the international response against the return of this
indiscriminate evil?
As expected, the Prime Minister gave a bellicose answer, but made no reference to OPCW.
We of course acted in Syria, with France and the United States, when we saw chemical
weapons being used there. We are in close contact with the United States and are monitoring
the situation closely, and if any use of chemical weapons is confirmed, we will respond
appropriately.
Woodcock's "British experts" appear to have included HdBG, who had suggested in a
tweet the day
before that Woodcock should ask the Prime Minister about Idlib, though not about a chemical
attack. In a subsequent tweet Woodcock stated that his
experts were "on the ground in Syria".
3.3 French response
The daily press from the French foreign ministry on 22 May responded to a question on the
alleged chemical attack on 19 May with:
We have noted with concern these allegations which must be investigated. We have full
confidence in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons .
3.4 US response
A press
statement from State Department Spokesperson Morgan Ortagus on 21 May dealt with the
alleged chemical attack two days earlier:
Unfortunately, we continue to see signs that the Assad regime may be renewing its use of
chemical weapons, including an alleged chlorine attack in northwest Syria on the morning of
May 19, 2019. We are still gathering information on this incident, but we repeat our warning
that if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons, the United States and our allies will respond
quickly and appropriately.
She mentioned a " continuing disinformation campaign " to "create the false narrative that
others are to blame for chemical weapons attacks that the Assad regime itself is conducting".
The following day Mr James Jeffrey, the State Department's special representative to Syria,
testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that "So far we cannot confirm [the reports of
chemical weapons use] but we're watching it". The New York Times
reported
this to be a "carefully worded recalibration" of the announcement by Morgan Ortagus the day
before, and that American military officials had "expressed surprise over the State
Department's strong statement". 4 Comparison of the Engineering Assessment with the
published Final Report
A comparison of the Engineering Assessment and the Final Report have been reported in
outline form by McIntyre . As Larson has
noted
, there are indications in the
Final
Report that whoever drafted it had access to an earlier version of the Engineering
Assessment (the released version dated 27 February 2019 is marked Rev 1) and was attempting to
rebut it without overtly mentioning it. For instance the Engineering Assessment lists five
points supporting the opinion of experts that the crater at location 2 had been created by a
the explosion of a mortar round or artillery rocket rather than an impact from a falling
object. These points included:
"an (unusually elevated, but possible) fragmentation pattern on upper walls"
"(whilst it was observed that a fire had been created in the corner of the room) black
scorching on the crater underside and ceiling."
The Final Report states falsely that a fragmentation pattern, visible in open-source images,
was absent:
The FFM analysed the damage on the rooftop terrace and below the crater in order to
determine if it had been created by an explosive device. However, this hypothesis is unlikely
given the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristic of an explosion that
may have created the crater and the damage surrounding it.
This is followed by a paragraph that notes the blackening of the ceiling and attributes it
to the fire set in the room. The Final Report's allusion to the possibility of an explosive
device, with mention of fragmentation pattern and the setting of a fire in the room appears to
be an attempt to explain away the argument made in the Engineering Assessment.
We note that several of the key findings of the Engineering Assessment are based only on
examination of the cylinders. For instance the Engineering Assessment reports that the cylinder
at Location 2 bears no markings that would be consistent with the frame with fins (lying on the
balcony) ever having been attached to it, let alone the markings that would be expected if the
frame had been stripped off by impact. The Final Report records that the Syrian government
insisted on retaining custody of the cylinders for criminal investigation purposes.
Accordingly:
On 4 June, FFM team members tagged and sealed the cylinders from Locations 2 and 4, and
documented the procedure.
A useful way to take forward the investigation of the Douma incident would now be for the
Syrian government to invite an international team of neutral experts to examine the cylinders,
to assess whether the observations support the findings of the Engineering Assessment or the
conclusions of the published FFM Final Report, and to publish their findings in a form that
allows peer review and reproducibility of results from data. The next step would be a criminal
investigation of this incident, focusing on where, how and by whom were the 35 victims seen in
images at Location 2 killed.
If SST readers are confused by OPCW's constantly shifting explanations for why the Final
Report on the Douma incident excluded the Engineering Assessment, they're not the only
ones.
Yesterday OPCW released its official response (dated 21 May) to Russian criticisms (dated
26 April) of the Final Report of the Fact-Finding Mission on the Douma incident. In this
response OPCW made, officially and on the record, the same argument as that made by
Whitaker's "informed source: that to assess how the cylinders arrived in their positions was
outside the mandate of the FFM.
Unfortunately for whoever thought up this defence, it is explicitly contradicted by both
the Interim Report (published last July) and the Final Report, which state that the objective
of the engineering studies was to evaluate how the cylinders arrived in position.
Peter Hitchens is on the case, and has listed these contradictions and requested an
explanation from OPCW.
Trump is
sign of degeneration of the US political elite. Much like Pompeo and Bolton.
But his hostility to Iran is just desire to please people who control him and finance his re-election bid .
Notable quotes:
"... ran sees no prospect of negotiations with the United States, a foreign ministry spokesman said on Tuesday ..."
"... Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that there won't be any talks with the U.S. until our government rejoins the JCPOA. ..."
"... I don't see how Iranians could view Trump as anything other than a menace when one of his first acts as president was to declare all of them to be potential security threats with the unnecessary and cruel travel ban. His hostility to and contempt for Iran and its people have been intense and consistent for more than two years. ..."
"... When the president veers between "genocidal tweets" and disingenuous offers to talk, this doesn't come across as the work of a master negotiator but rather the impulsive babbling of a leader who can be easily enraged by the smallest and most inconsequential things that he happens to see on television ..."
"... Trump is not talking to Iran but his lackies in the U.S. MSM. They are seeing Iran as being fanatic and unreasonable in refusing to talk. This will be one of the justifications for war and permanent hostilities. ..."
"... I think you're wrong here. Trump doesn't hate or have contempt for Iranians. He's supremely indifferent to them. The hostility and contempt he has shown Iran and Iranians is meant to keep his major Israel and Saudi Arabia donors happy. That's been true from the beginning. Scores of millions in campaign contributions are riding on it. ..."
"... Increasingly, Donaldius Iohannes Trumpius reminds me of some latter day Roman emperor like Caligula or Nero. Absolute power, depravity, insatiable appetites for everything from power to money and women, a pathological lack of empathy, fawning courtiers – it's all there. ..."
In case there was any doubt, the Iranian government
made clear that they were not interested in talking to Trump:
I ran sees no prospect of negotiations with the United States, a foreign ministry
spokesman said on Tuesday , a day after U.S. President Donald Trump said a deal with
Tehran on its nuclear program was possible.
Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that there won't be any talks with the U.S.
until our government rejoins the JCPOA. That definitely won't happen under the current
administration, so there has never been a realistic chance of starting up U.S.-Iranian
negotiations in the near term. Everyone understands that, and that makes the president's random
"offers" to talk all the more ridiculous. Iran has already been burned by Trump's decision to
renege on the nuclear deal and wage economic war on the entire country, so there would have to
be a major effort on the U.S. side to regain Iranian trust. The Trump administration would have
to reverse course and undo every anti-Iranian thing that it has done over the last two years,
and even then that would barely get the U.S. and Iran back to where they had been in 2017.
Trump wouldn't ever do that because it would require him to admit being completely wrong.
Najmeh Bozorgmehr reports on how Iranians
are adapting to life under U.S. economic warfare against them:
Iranian analysts tell me the US made one big mistake this time. It used almost all its
non-military leverage against Iran over the wrong issue, because the country was not
violating the 2015 nuclear accord. Iranians may despise their rulers but they are aware that
the US is not righteous, either. How can they see Mr Trump as a saviour when he calls Iran "a
nation of terror" and promises "the official end of Iran"?
I don't see how Iranians could view Trump as anything other than a menace when one of
his first acts as president was to declare all of them to be potential security threats with
the unnecessary and cruel travel ban. His hostility to and contempt for Iran and its people
have been intense and consistent for more than two years. The complete lack of respect
that Trump has shown to Iranian leaders and the Iranian people alike stands in sharp contrast
to his fawning praise for the North Korean leader, and they cannot help but take that as an
insult. It also isn't lost on the people being strangled by Trump's sanctions that they are
being punished for abiding by an international agreement backed by the world's major powers
while North Korea is celebrated after successfully defying the rest of the world by building up
their nuclear arsenal and long-range missiles. Iran is being penalized because they trusted the
U.S., and Trump has proven to them that this was a foolish thing for them to do. Why would they
reward Trump's aggression and make the same mistake twice?
When the president veers between "genocidal tweets" and disingenuous offers to talk,
this doesn't come across as the work of a master negotiator but rather the impulsive babbling
of a leader who can be easily enraged by the smallest and most inconsequential things that he
happens to see on television . As the North Koreans have also learned, no one can
successfully negotiate with a person as unreliable and moody as Trump. No one in Iran's
government is going to go out on a limb and take the political risk of engaging with the U.S.
again after the last effort blew up in their faces, and Trump's mercurial instability
guarantees that it would be a waste of everyone's time.
Trump is not talking to Iran but his lackies in the U.S. MSM. They are seeing Iran as
being fanatic and unreasonable in refusing to talk. This will be one of the justifications
for war and permanent hostilities.
Our own acts of aggression are completely ignored.
"His hostility to and contempt for Iran and its people have been intense and consistent
for more than two years. "
I think you're wrong here. Trump doesn't hate or have contempt for Iranians. He's
supremely indifferent to them. The hostility and contempt he has shown Iran and Iranians is
meant to keep his major Israel and Saudi Arabia donors happy. That's been true from the
beginning. Scores of millions in campaign contributions are riding on it.
Increasingly, Donaldius Iohannes Trumpius reminds me of some latter day Roman emperor like
Caligula or Nero. Absolute power, depravity, insatiable appetites for everything from power
to money and women, a pathological lack of empathy, fawning courtiers – it's all
there.
"Mueller supposedly has forwarded
some material to federal and New York State prosecutors who have clear legal authority in those domains.
It has been known for at least two years, though, that substantial grounds (and evidence) already
existed to bring several cases to a grand jury.
That suggests that serious action never will be taken.
For one things, a number of prominent people would be exposed: e.g. Bibi Netanyahu, the heads of the
Russo-Israeli mafias, Felix Sater, the twice convicted felon and Trump 'counsellor' who avoided a second
prison term by agreeing to inform for the FBI and CIA but in fact worked both sides of the street, and
God knows who else.
Just as the Panama Papers scandal disappeared over the horizon, and the big 5
financial families got away with massive money-laundering for the drug cartels, and Deutsche Bank was
granted immunity by Angela Merkel despite their multiple criminal activities, so will the Trump affair
die out in obscurity."
In this interview we discuss
Trump-Russia and the deep state, disagree about 9/11, but agree that high-level corruption is out of
control.
Michael Brenner is Professor of
International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh; a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic
Relations, SAIS-Johns Hopkins (Washington, D.C.), contributor to research and consulting projects on
Euro-American security and economic issues. He publishes and teaches in the fields of American foreign
policy, Euro-American relations, and the European Union.
Trump did business with cement companies run by mafioso thugs because they also controlled the unions
and would call strikes if crossed. He was basically a target for shakedowns, and Trump knew those people
were not anyone to profitably do business with. I am sure Russian-Israeli organised crime would be the
same.
Anything to do with the Mafia back in the days of Gotti was massively investigated Trump is too
wary and careful with his money to get burned that way.
As Halifax observed, men often mistake
themselves but they never forget themselves, so I would think it is neither conspiracy as Barrett says
or the incompetence which Brenner suggests.
You did not need to be in the CIA to have an inkling. In
fact the whole plan was virtually public knowledge beforehand. It was broadcast on the BBC well before
9/11 that mullahs in London mosques were advocating the highjacking of airplanes and crashing them into
American skyscrapers. This fact was subsequently alluded to by BBC reporters in the aftermath of 9/11.
I think it is becoming clear that a disproportionate amount of FBI and NY DA's resources were put
into chasing the Mafia instead of Muslim terrorism.
Giuliani made such a reputation on the back of
prosecuting the Mafia, and then the FBI had a household name like Gotti to go after, that the careerists
in law enforcement doubled down on a bunch of low level racketeers, even after the first WTC attack.
The belief that somehow the Mafia was more of a threat to New York than al Qaeda -- that caused
the FBI to let their guard down on the bin Laden threat. [ ]
There is now little doubt that if the Feds had devoted as much energy to a surveillance of Sphinx
as they had to the Ravenite Social Club, they would have been in the middle of the 9/11 plot months
before Black Tuesday. Because in July of 2001, Khalid al-Midhar and Salem al-Hazmi got their fake
I.D.'s delivered to them in a mailbox at the identical location the FBI had been onto in the decade
since El Sayyid Nosair had killed Meier Kahane. The man who supplied those fake ID's that allowed
al-Midhar and al-Hazmi to board A.A. Flight #77 that hit the Pentagon, was none other than Mohammed
El-Attriss the co-incorporator of Sphinx with Waleed al-Noor – whom Patrick Fitzgerald had put on
the unindicted co-conspirators list along with bin Laden and Ali Mohamed in 1995.
@anon26_
that, and the fact that it's race-realist throughout. Note, for instance, the early juxtaposition of the
2 rich "Russian" mafia Jew sisters (played to the hilt by 2 Jewesses, Gal Gadot and Kate Winslett)
reading to the half-'groid kid (while getting their feet manicured) with the elementally poor-but-good,
White cop's wife reading to their White kid. It's full of subtle stuff like this, but you have to see it
a few times to pick it all out. I also like the way they got actual spic 'bangers playing spic 'bangers.
That worked.
@Haxo Angmark
I saw this film a year ago and I can tell you exectly why it got no distribution:
It was a shitty,
mean-spirited story of horrible people robbing, stealing, killing for no good reasons. Yeah there were
reasons but none of them were good ones.
Furthermore the tragic ending made absoutely no sense and was just a stupid contrivance. Despite good
acting from Gal Gadot, Woody and Alfeck, nothing could save this movie.
I needed to shower and scrub myself 10 times after watching this horrible nonsense.
Horrible in every respect.
I know that wasn't what you were expecting. It's because of the Jews. Ugh. Had nothing to do with
that, but a lot to do with how the movie tested and it tested poorly because if you watch it, you hate
humanity and yourself just from this movie.
"... Most diplomats, officials, and journalists were shocked that Bolton (evading confirmation with a recess appointment) had actually become the U.S. representative, given his long, public disdain for the UN ..."
"... It's been the strategy of Republican administrations to appoint the fiercest critic to head an agency or institution in order to weaken it, perhaps even fatally. ..."
"... Bolton possesses an abiding self-righteousness rooted in what seems a sincere belief in the myth of American greatness, mixed with deep personal failings hidden from public view. ..."
"... It is more than an ideology. It's fanaticism. Bolton believes America is exceptional and indispensible and superior to all other nations and isn't afraid to say so. ..."
"... Bolton's all too willing to make his bullying personal on behalf of the state. He implicitly threatened the children of José Bustani, who Vice President Dick Cheney wanted out of his job as head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons because Bustani had gotten Iraq to agree to join the chemical weapons protocol, thereby making it harder for the U.S. to invade Iraq. ..."
"... We saw a pattern of Mr. Bolton trying to manipulate intelligence to justify his views. If it had happened once, maybe. But it came up multiple times, and always it was the same underlying issue: he would stake out a position, and then, if the intelligence didn't support it, he would try to exaggerate the intelligence and marginalize the officials who had produced it." ..."
"... Bolton is no fan of democracy if things don't go his way. He is a vociferous instigator of the so-far failed U.S. coup in Venezuela and of course Bolton organized the "Brooks Brothers riot" that disrupted the recounting of votes in Florida in the disputed 2000 presidential election ..."
"... This is a common ruling class tactic in the U.S. to portray disobedient leaders ripe for overthrow as Hitler. Saddam was Hitler, Milosevic was Hitler, Noriega was Hitler and Hillary Clinton called Putin Hitler. It is a false revival of U.S. glory from World War II to paint foreign adventures as moral crusades, rather than naked aggression in pursuit of profits and power. ..."
"... Bolton is the distillation of the pathology of American power. He is unique only in the purity of this pathology. ..."
"... Two months after Bolton was appointed national security adviser, in June 2018, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the six-nation deal that has seen Tehran curtail its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for relaxation of U.S. and international sanctions. ..."
"... Both Israel and Saudi Arabia, lacking the military firepower of the United States, have long tried to get the U.S. to fight its wars, and one no more important than against its common enemy. ..."
"... It is the typical provocation of a bully: threaten someone with a cruise missile and the moment they pick up a knife in self-defense you attack, conveniently leaving the initial threat out of the story. It then becomes: "Iran picked up a knife. We have to blow them away with cruise missiles." ..."
"... The New York Times that day reported : "Privately, several European officials described Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo as pushing an unsuspecting Mr. Trump through a series of steps that could put the United States on a course to war before the president realizes it." ..."
"... Pompeo told a radio interviewer after the briefing that the U.S. had still not determined who attacked two Saudi, a Norwegian and an Emirati oil tanker in the Gulf last week, which bore the hallmarks of a provocation. Pompeo said "it seems like it's quite possible that Iran was behind" the attacks. ..."
"... But also last Sunday he told Fox News that the "military-industrial complex" is real and "they do like war" and they "went nuts" when he said he wanted to withdraw troops from Syria. Trump said he didn't want war with Iran, here possibly reflecting Israel's views. ..."
"... Joe, nice piece of work covering the psycho-pathology of America's leading nazi! ..."
"... To correct one of your statements: Trump DID NOT appoint him National Security Adviser, but Adelson and Mercer did. Trump is a brain-dead, blackmailed puppet who fancies himself as POTUS ..."
"... Everybody I know who is following the Washington Beltway histrionics of Trump et al know full-well that a certain intelligence agency of a small Middle East domiciled country have THE definitive dossier on Trump and have been building it for the last five decades. ..."
"... The Bolton-Pompeo-Pence presidency is destined to go down in history as one of infamy and treason. Trump? dead-man walking, more than likely by a stroke-heart attack when he's popping out one of his idiotic and manic tweets! ..."
"... John Bolton is a psychopath, He should be dismissed immediately, but I think that he should be institutionalized. ..."
"... Yeah Joe, it wasn't just you and other reporters who were stunned by Bolton's recess appt to the UN by W -- - many of us were staggered by the jaw-dropping inappropriateness of it, ..."
"... But, as you accurately mentioned, the Republicans had long-ago (I recall first hearing about it during Nixon's reign, with Earl Butz) used that gambit to effectively sabotage regulatory agencies & depts. Rather than try to dissolve an agency that most people want, they can neutralize it by appointing some hack or lobbyist for the entity being regulated so that nothing meaningful gets done, AND it has the 'beneficial' effect of discrediting the agency involved, and government in general, which is what many libertarian-inclined Republicans like. ..."
"... Israel doesnt want the US to attack Iran Well that is BS! Israel and its Fifth Column in the US have agitated for the US to attack Iran for years .we've all seen and heard it .and now they want to try to wipe our memories of their war mongering with their typical hasbara in the NYT and Netanyahu claiming .'oh we have nothing to do with it." ..."
"... Bolton is a psychopath but he is Sheldon Adelson's errand boy .who Bolton met with in Las Vegas the week before Trump appointed him and Adelson is the Orange carnival barker's 100 million dollar donor. ..."
"... Trump's incoherent mixture of neoconservative & isolationism almost make him a Bush! ..."
"... I assume Trump knows what a 'neocon' but is so indebted to Israel and intoxicated by Islamophobic rhetoric that he cannot free himself from his addiction to surrounding himself with more neo-cons ..."
"... The progression from Flynn to McMaster to Bolton was just selecting between neocon flavors for his National Security Advisers. What a joke of a nation! ..."
"... I appreciate the article, but it doesn't mention Israel, which is the fountainhead of the agenda to take out Iran, Iraq, and Syria. ..."
"... "Overall, 28 sitting senators have received sizable contributions from John Bolton PAC during the election cycle, as have nine representatives on the House defense, foreign affairs, and homeland security subcommittees." ..."
"... Don't forget who told Donald Trump to hire John Bolton. It was Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes. ..."
"... They like Bolton because he is "incapable of empathy and good on Israel." ..."
"... The NYT has indeed supported wars but it is not alone nor is this a recent trend. There is a very old trend of the commercial news establishments becoming war hawks and regurtitators of official propaganda whenever the USA wants to pick a fight. It goes back to the period after the establishment of the nation when expansionism set its roots down and what grew out of that is pretty much the same kind of nationalistic propaganda we see today. ..."
John Bolton has been saying for years he wants the Iranian government overthrown, and now he's made his move. But this time he
may have gone too far, writes Joe Lauria.
I knew John Bolton and interacted with him on a nearly daily basis with my colleagues in the press corps at United Nations headquarters
in New York when Bolton was the United States ambassador there from August 2005 to December 2006.
Most diplomats, officials, and journalists were shocked that Bolton (evading confirmation with a recess appointment) had
actually become the U.S. representative, given his long, public disdain for the UN. But that turned out to be the point.
It's been the strategy of Republican administrations to appoint the fiercest critic to head an agency or institution in order
to weaken it, perhaps even fatally.
Bolton's most infamous quote about the UN followed him into the building. In 1994 he had
said : "The Secretariat building
in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
But a more telling comment in that same 1994 conference was when he said that no matter what the UN decides the U.S. will do
whatever it wants:
Bolton sees such frank admissions as signs of strength, not alarm.
He is a humorless man, who at the UN at least, seemed to always think he was the smartest person in the room. He once gave a
lecture in 2006 at the U.S. mission to UN correspondents, replete with a chalk board, on how nuclear enrichment worked. His aim,
of course, was to convince us that Iran was close to a bomb, even though a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate being prepared
at the time said Tehran had
abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
I thought I'd challenge him one day at the press stakeout outside the Security Council chamber, where Bolton often stopped to
lecture journalists on what they should write. "If the United States and Britain had not overthrown a democratically elected government
in Iran in 1953 would the United States be today faced with a revolutionary government enriching uranium?' I asked him.
"That's an interesting question," he told me, "but for another time and another place." It was a time and a place, of course,
that never came.
More Than an Ideology
Bolton possesses an abiding self-righteousness rooted in what seems a sincere belief in the myth of American greatness, mixed
with deep personal failings hidden from public view.
He seemed perpetually angry and it wasn't clear whether it was over some personal or diplomatic feud. He seems to take personally
nations standing up to America, binding his sense of personal power with that of the United States.
It is more than an ideology. It's fanaticism. Bolton believes America is exceptional and indispensible and superior to all
other nations and isn't afraid to say so. He'd have been better off perhaps in the McKinley administration, before the days
of PR-sugarcoating of imperial aggression. He's not your typical passive-aggressive government official. He's aggressive-aggressive.
And now Bolton is ordering 120,000 troops to get ready and an aircraft carrier to steam towards Iran.
Bolton's all too willing to make his bullying personal on behalf of the state. He implicitly
threatened the children
of José Bustani, who Vice President Dick Cheney wanted out of his job as head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons because Bustani had gotten Iraq to agree to join the chemical weapons protocol, thereby making it harder for the U.S. to
invade Iraq.
After Bolton's failed 2005 confirmation hearings, Tony Blinken, the then staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
told The New Yorker
's Dexter Filkins:
"We saw a pattern of Mr. Bolton trying to manipulate intelligence to justify his views. If it had happened once, maybe.
But it came up multiple times, and always it was the same underlying issue: he would stake out a position, and then, if the
intelligence didn't support it, he would try to exaggerate the intelligence and marginalize the officials who had produced it."
Bolton is no fan of democracy if things don't go his way. He is a vociferous instigator of the so-far failed U.S. coup in
Venezuela and of course Bolton organized
the "Brooks Brothers riot" that disrupted the recounting of votes in Florida in the disputed 2000 presidential election.
What is alarming about the above video is not so much that he justifies lying, but the example he gives: lying to cover up military
plans like the invasion of Normandy. This is a common ruling class tactic in the U.S. to portray disobedient leaders ripe for
overthrow as Hitler. Saddam was Hitler, Milosevic was Hitler, Noriega was Hitler and Hillary Clinton called Putin Hitler. It is
a false revival of U.S. glory from World War II to paint foreign adventures as moral crusades, rather than naked aggression in pursuit
of profits and power.
Bolton is the distillation of the pathology of American power. He is unique only in the purity of this pathology.
Regime Change for Iran
The U.S. national security adviser has been saying for years he wants the Iranian government overthrown, and now he's made his
move. But this time John Bolton may have flown too high.
He was chosen for his post by a president with limited understanding of international affairs -- if real estate is not involved
-- and one who loves to be sucked up to. Trump is Bolton's perfect cover.
But hubris may have finally bested Bolton. He had never before maneuvered himself into such a position of power, though he'd
left a trail of chaos at lower levels of government. Sitting opposite the Resolute desk on a daily basis has presented a chance to implement
his plans.
At the top of that agenda
has been Bolton's stated aim for years: to
bomb and
topple
the Iranian government.
Thus Bolton was the driving force to get a carrier strike force sent to the Persian Gulf and, according to The New York Times,
on May 14 , it was he who
"ordered" a Pentagon
plan to prepare 120,000 U.S. troops for the Gulf. These were to be deployed "if Iran attacked American forces or accelerated its
work on nuclear weapons."
Two months after Bolton was appointed national security adviser, in June 2018, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the six-nation
deal that has seen Tehran curtail its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for relaxation of U.S. and international sanctions.
At the time of Bolton's appointment in April 2018, Tom Countryman, who had been undersecretary of state for arms control and
international security, as had Bolton,
predicted
to The Intercept that if Iran resumed enrichment after the U.S. left the deal, it "would be the kind of excuse that a
person like Bolton would look to to create a military provocation or direct attack on Iran."
In response to ever tightening sanctions, Iran said on May 5 (May 6 in Tehran) that it would indeed
restart partial nuclear enrichment. On the same day, Bolton
announced the carrier strike group was headed to the Gulf.
Bolton Faces Resistance
If this were a normally functioning White House, in which imperial moves are normally made, a president would order military
action, and not a national security adviser.
"I don't think Trump is smart enough to realize what Bolton and [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo are doing to him,"
former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel told RT's Afshin Rattansi
this week.
"They have manipulated him. When you get the national security adviser who claims that he ordered an aircraft carrier flotilla
to go into the Persian Gulf, we've never seen that. In the days of Henry Kissinger, who really brought sway, he never ordered
this, and if it was ordered it was done behind closed doors."
Bolton claimed he acted on intelligence that Iran was poised to attack U.S. interests close to Iran.
Both Israel and Saudi Arabia, lacking the military firepower of the United States, have long tried to get the U.S. to fight
its wars, and one no more important than against its common enemy. An
editorial on May 16 in the Saudi English-language news
outlet, Arab News , called for a U.S. "surgical strike" on Iran. But The New York Times reported on the
same day that though Israel was behind Bolton's "intelligence" about an Iranian threat, Israel does not want the U.S. to attack
Iran causing a full-scale war.
The
intelligence alleged Iran was fitting missiles on fishing boats in the Gulf. Imagine a government targeted by the most powerful
military force in history wanting to defend itself in its own waters.
Bolton also said Iran was threatening Western interests in Iraq, which led eventually to non-essential U.S. diplomatic staff
leaving Baghdad and Erbil.
It is the typical provocation of a bully: threaten someone with a cruise missile and the moment they pick up a knife in self-defense
you attack, conveniently leaving the initial threat out of the story. It then becomes: "Iran picked up a knife. We have to blow
them away with cruise missiles."
But this time the bully is being challenged. Federica Mogherini, the EU's high representative for foreign affairs and security
policy,
resisted the U.S. on Iran when she met Pompeo in Brussels on May 13.
"It's always better to talk, rather than not to, and especially when tensions arise Mike Pompeo heard that very clearly today
from us," said Mogherini. "We are living in a crucial, delicate moment where the most relevant attitude to take – the most responsible
attitude to take – is and we believe should be, that of maximum restraint and avoiding any escalation on the military side."
The New York Times that day
reported
: "Privately, several European officials described Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo as pushing an unsuspecting Mr. Trump through a series
of steps that could put the United States on a course to war before the president realizes it."
Ghika: No new threat from Iran. (YouTube)
British Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika then said on May 14: "There has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or
Syria." Ghika was
rebuked by U.S. Central Command, whose spokesman said, "Recent comments from OIR's Deputy Commander run counter to the identified
credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region."
A day later it was Trump himself, however, who was said to be resisting Bolton. On May 15 The Washington Post reported:
"President Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisers, who he thinks could rush the United States into a military
confrontation with Iran and shatter his long-standing pledge to withdraw from costly foreign wars, according to several U.S.
officials. Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly with Iran's leaders."
"President Trump has told his acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, according
to several administration officials, in a message to his hawkish aides that an intensifying American pressure campaign against
the clerical-led government in Tehran must not escalate into open conflict."
Then it was the Democrats who stood up to Bolton. On Tuesday Pompeo and Shanahan briefed senators and representatives behind
closed doors on Capitol Hill regarding the administration's case for confronting Iran.
"Are they (Iran) reacting to us, or are we doing these things in reaction to them? That is a major question I have, that I still
have," Sen. Angus King told reporters after the briefing. "What we view as defensive, they view as provocative. Or vice versa."
Democratic Representative Ruben Gallego told reporters after the briefing: "I believe there is a certain level of escalation
of both sides that could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The feedback loop tells us they're escalating for war, but they could
just be escalating because we're escalating."
Pompeo told a radio interviewer after the briefing that the U.S. had still not determined who attacked two Saudi, a Norwegian
and an Emirati oil tanker in the Gulf last week, which bore the hallmarks of a provocation. Pompeo said "it seems like it's quite
possible that Iran was behind" the attacks.
Bolton was conspicuously absent from the closed-door briefing.
It's Up to Trump
Trump has pinballed all over the place on Iran. He called the Times and Post stories about him resisting Bolton
"fake news."
"The Fake News Media is hurting our Country with its fraudulent and highly inaccurate coverage of Iran. It is scattershot, poorly
sourced (made up), and DANGEROUS. At least Iran doesn't know what to think, which at this point may very well be a good thing!"
Trump tweeted on May 17.
The Fake News Media is hurting our Country with its fraudulent and highly inaccurate coverage of Iran. It is scattershot,
poorly sourced (made up), and DANGEROUS. At least Iran doesn't know what to think, which at this point may very well be a good
thing!
Then he threatened what could be construed as genocide against Iran. "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of
Iran. Never threaten the United States again!" he tweeted on Sunday.
But also last Sunday he told Fox News that the
"military-industrial complex" is real and "they do like war" and they "went nuts" when he said he wanted to withdraw troops from
Syria. Trump said he didn't want war with Iran, here possibly reflecting Israel's views.
On Monday he implied that the crisis has been drummed up to get Iran to negotiate.
"The Fake News put out a typically false statement, without any knowledge that the United States was trying to set up a negotiation
with Iran. This is a false report ."
The Fake News put out a typically false statement, without any knowledge that the United States was trying to set up
a negotiation with Iran. This is a false report....
John Bolton must be stopped before he gets his war. It is beyond troubling that the man we have to count on to do it is Donald
Trump.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street Journal,
Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at [email protected]and followed on Twitter @unjoe .
Or as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is US." As in the lies that created the Vietnam war and the waste of 58,000
American soldiers and thousand of Vietnamese. Or the lie that Iran is our enemy when we funded and encouraged Saddam to attack
them and destroyed their attempt to have a secular government.
Or the lie of the WMD's and the 9/11 attack which was funded by Saudi Arabia, and run by Saudis and NOT Iraq.
Or the lies of Afghanistan which was economically and culturally better off when it was controlled by the USSR...
John Hawk , May 26, 2019 at 16:56
Joe, nice piece of work covering the psycho-pathology of America's leading nazi!
To correct one of your statements: Trump DID NOT appoint him National Security Adviser, but Adelson and Mercer did. Trump
is a brain-dead, blackmailed puppet who fancies himself as POTUS.
It can't get any more delusional than this. Everybody I know who is following the Washington Beltway histrionics of Trump
et al know full-well that a certain intelligence agency of a small Middle East domiciled country have THE definitive dossier
on Trump and have been building it for the last five decades.
After all, deception is their game and they use it liberally, like feeding their agenda to Bolton as 'intelligence' info
of the highest order. The Bolton-Pompeo-Pence presidency is destined to go down in history as one of infamy and treason.
Trump? dead-man walking, more than likely by a stroke-heart attack when he's popping out one of his idiotic and manic tweets!
Zhu , May 26, 2019 at 03:20
If Bolton were struck by lightning tomorrow morning, would anything change much? I doubt it. We Americans are as warlike
as the ancient Assyrian. We've been slaughtering Indians, Koreans, SE Asians, Central Americans, and multiple Middle Eastern
people for a looong time. It is flattering to blame this individual or th t country, but no. We, as a community, are all responsible
to some degree. Even me, on the far side of the world.
Alex , May 25, 2019 at 21:50
Bolton's choosing destroyed IRAN but staying friends with Saudi Arabia it's so contradicting, and so obvious that he is influenced
to behave this way is because Israelies influence. Saudy Kingdom using Bolton to get IRAN so Saudy will be only country promote
Extreme version of Wahhabi Islam which is didn't existed In Islam's history.
So Bolton's obsession with destruction of Iran is ignorance as its best. September 11th suspects were most of them Saudy
nationals, yet nobody wanted to talk about it, because there is irony that, George W Bush was and probably still doing business
with Saudy. So how can you explain that to American people? No you can not.
Perhaps collectively hypnotism !
OlyaPola , May 26, 2019 at 02:58
" So how can you explain that to American people?"
Given that useful fools are useful, why would you want to?
" No you can not."
An illustration of the benefits of dumbing down do not accrue solely to those actively engaged in dumbing down, facilitating
the minimising of blowback during implementation of strategies based on "How to drown a drowning man with the minimum of blowback",
given that many believe that critical mass is a function of linear notions of 50% +1 and above; a further conflation of quantity
with quality to which the opponents are prone.
William , May 25, 2019 at 19:06
John Bolton is a psychopath, He should be dismissed immediately, but I think that he should be institutionalized.
Put him in a strait jacket and keep him in a padded cell. He poses a threat to millions of people.
Eddie S , May 25, 2019 at 11:26
Yeah Joe, it wasn't just you and other reporters who were stunned by Bolton's recess appt to the UN by W -- - many of
us were staggered by the jaw-dropping inappropriateness of it, IF it was assessed from a pro-peace perspective.
But, as you accurately mentioned, the Republicans had long-ago (I recall first hearing about it during Nixon's reign,
with Earl Butz) used that gambit to effectively sabotage regulatory agencies & depts. Rather than try to dissolve an agency
that most people want, they can neutralize it by appointing some hack or lobbyist for the entity being regulated so that nothing
meaningful gets done, AND it has the 'beneficial' effect of discrediting the agency involved, and government in general, which
is what many libertarian-inclined Republicans like.
Good article about a reprehensible politician.
renfro , May 25, 2019 at 11:18
"But The New York Times reported on the same day that though Israel was behind Bolton's "intelligence" about an Iranian
threat, Israel does not want the U.S. to attack Iran causing a full-scale war. "
________________________________
Israel doesnt want the US to attack Iran Well that is BS!
Israel and its Fifth Column in the US have agitated for the US to attack Iran for years .we've all seen and heard it .and now
they want to try to wipe our memories of their war mongering with their typical hasbara in the NYT and Netanyahu claiming .'oh
we have nothing to do with it."
Bolton is a psychopath but he is Sheldon Adelson's errand boy .who Bolton met with in Las Vegas the week before Trump
appointed him and Adelson is the Orange carnival barker's 100 million dollar donor.
Seriously, how stupid do they think we are? If we attack Iran it will be for the Zionist and Saudis and we all know it.
Luther Bliss , May 25, 2019 at 10:57
Trump's incoherent mixture of neoconservative & isolationism almost make him a Bush!
Remember it wasn't until Bush JR's second term that he asked his father, "What's A Neocon?" to which Pappy Bush replied,
"Israel."
I assume Trump knows what a 'neocon' but is so indebted to Israel and intoxicated by Islamophobic rhetoric that he cannot
free himself from his addiction to surrounding himself with more neo-cons.
The progression from Flynn to McMaster to Bolton was just selecting between neocon flavors for his National Security
Advisers. What a joke of a nation!
Mark , May 25, 2019 at 02:30
I appreciate the article, but it doesn't mention Israel, which is the fountainhead of the agenda to take out Iran, Iraq,
and Syria. Bolton stands out for his extremity among extremists, but he's a means rather than the end. The agenda is something
into which he bought, passionately by all indications, but which a paucity of other people created strictly to advance their
own, tiny, exclusive clan, not for the benefit of the United States.
Hank , May 25, 2019 at 09:43
To think that this administration campaigned on a promise to restrict future wasteful and needless interventions and then
hired this dinosaur of a warmonger makes my blood curl! Everyone with half a brain knows what Bolton's agenda is yet here he
is leading the USA into a war at the behest of a foreign nation led by a felon and terrorist! The American people who want peace
and their tax dollars invested into improving the USA have once again been stabbed in the back by a conniving administration.
Will this cycle of non-democracy ever end? Until it does, future administrations will continue on just like previous ones- kowtowing
to special interests, in particular the military/industrial mafia and the apartheid criminal state of Israel! All this massive
business of holding "elections" in the USA, all the talk about "Russian collusion" and the REAL collusion is right there in
front of us all- the US administration has once again COLLUDED to go back on a campaign promise and once again open the money
trough for the military/industrialist pigs!
Mark , May 26, 2019 at 05:31
I get the idea, but it's necessary to look 'behind' back-stabbing, conniving, colluding administrations, and Bolton, and
the military/industrial complex, and to bring Israel and some barely known U.S. history, at least back to World War I, explicitly
to the fore for public scrutiny. That's a monumental task, to say the least, owing to American attention spans and the contrary
interests of the powers that be.
Taras77 , May 24, 2019 at 20:24
Bolton has his own well funded PAC, from which he is free to "contribute" (bribe) sychophant congress individuals. What a
situation for the fix for war.
"Overall, 28 sitting senators have received sizable contributions from John Bolton PAC during the election cycle, as
have nine representatives on the House defense, foreign affairs, and homeland security subcommittees."
ricardo2000 , May 24, 2019 at 17:29
By far the most productive, and most verifiable, way to eliminate weapons is at a negotiating table. The easiest way to start
a war is with ignorant blather.
O Society , May 24, 2019 at 16:09
Don't forget who told Donald Trump to hire John Bolton. It was Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes.
They like Bolton because he is "incapable of empathy and good on Israel."
Trump initially declined on Bolton because "he doesn't like Bolton's moustache."
Kool Aid drinkers and idiots. We're being lead by a cult of morons who worship the bombs, money, and a white separatist state.
i doubt the iranians will test a nuke until after djt is out of office. after that you might wake up one morning and everything
you knew before becomes quite obsolete.
my guess is israel has stealth cruise missiles with h bombs. it would be very foolish of them to not have them. those descendants
of egyptian slaves are anything but foolish.
Sam , May 27, 2019 at 00:33
@ CitizenOne: Thank you for your long comment. I agree with much of what you wrote, but would like to know why you claimed,
"Iran is surely guilty of vowing the destruction of Israel " . According to what I've read, Iran has not initiated hostilities
with any nation for over a century – a clear, peaceful contrast to the rogue states of Israel & the U.S. Are you referring to
the long-ago-debunked claim that Iran claimed to 'wipe Israel off the map'?
(See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155
? "So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors,
the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague
wish for the future.
"A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option – the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" –
with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel.
")
Or perhaps you're referring to Revolutionary Guard deputy leader Hossein Salami's warning that if Israel starts an aggressive
war against Iran, it 'will end with {Israel's} elimination from the global political map'? IMHO, warning an extremely aggressive,
self-obsessed, Apartheid-practicing rogue state against trying to attack your nation is wise ;-) .
I look forward to your response. Thanks very much.
Sam F , May 27, 2019 at 06:12
Sam: please use an identifier initial as I do, to prevent confusion.
I have asked you twice before; perhaps not the same person.
It is unfair to expect others to make the clarification, and easy to prevent.
How is it that crazies like Bolton can end up high in our government hierarchy? It is because the whole damned government
is crazy through and through
Joe , May 23, 2019 at 20:48
His Dad probably made a huge donation to Yale just like Bush's Dad. That's what happens when the system is gamed.
Art Thomas , May 25, 2019 at 09:22
Yes, in my opinion. The state stripped of patriotic rhetoric and other obfuscations that keep us devoted to it is nothing
more than a criminal gang that hides behind the law.
Some basic examples. 1. The law: taxation, the crime: theft. 2. The law: monetary credit expansion, i.e. debt financing,
the crime: counterfeiting, i.e. creating money out of thin air. 3. The invasion of countries not a threat to the invading state.
Etc. etc.
Tiu , May 23, 2019 at 18:30
If the US "political establishment" was working for America's benefit, things would look very different.
They are instead working on the "globalist" agenda, which will, if successful, destroy all nations as we know them today and
what remains will be ruled over by a bunch of sociopaths who are the same group that has inflicted John Bolton on the world.
Bolton's a tool, a bit like a hammer, to get their project done. The Democrats have equivalent tools e.g. H R Clinton.
Mark Thomason , May 23, 2019 at 18:04
The problem is if he hasn't gone too far. If he gets his war.
Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 16:53
John Bolton should get to ride the missile in the remake of Dr. Strangelove.
evelync , May 23, 2019 at 19:53
hah hah hah
I loved that movie :)
and yes Bolton is a perfect caricature of Slim Pickens AKA Dr Strangelove.
I also refer to him as Yosemite Sam
one difference for our current real life war monger is that the movie character was simply insane and didn't justify his
craziness with explanations.
Bolton, OTOH, blames "national Security" and "the national interests" of this country .say what????
if we look at the horrific human costs and the enormous financial costs of the wars that were fought for U.S. "national interests"
one would want to ask, once the rubble had cleared, what "interests" were actually served and whose "security" did they actually
improve?
The answers always take us back to Eisenhower's MIC and Ray McGovern's MICIMATT (maybe I got a couple of these letters wrong?).
Whoever profited from the mayhem don't represent either our "national interest' or our "national security" IMO and yet those
two phrases are used to shut down any discussion or criticism in the lead up .
whew
Mork D , May 25, 2019 at 01:20
Strictly about the movie – Slim Pickens plays the ranking officer on the B-52 (I think?) which is actually dropping the bomb.
Dr Strangelove is a totally different character, one of a few played by Peter Sellers in that movie, and is a (mostly!) wheelchair-bound
German scientist.
And the wheelchair bound psychopathic scientist of Dr. Strangelove was inspired by Kubrick meeting Henry Kissinger at a cocktail
party and recognizing that Kissinger was the most evil person on this planet because he looked and sounded so responsible and
rational.
Now that Saddam, bin Laden, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler are dead, Kissinger holds the record of the person still alive who has
needlessly killed more people, both Americans and non-Americans, than any other person on this planet.
Hillary's idea of destabilizing Libya and creating a political vacuum there was from her training when working for Kissinger.
Abe , May 23, 2019 at 16:51
The Pathology:
John Bolton
Senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Chairman of Gatestone Institute (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Former board member of Project for the New American Century (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Former Adviser to Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (pro-Israel Lobby organization) https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/john-bolton/
Mike Pompeo
Christian Zionist: "We will continue to fight these battles, it is a never ending struggle until the Rapture."
Associate of Center for Security Policy (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Sponsor of ACT! for America (pro-Israel Lobby organization) https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/mike-pompeo/
Sam , May 27, 2019 at 00:38
@ Abe: Thanks for the info!
Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 16:42
John Bolton is obviously a very sick puppy.
This is patently obvious to any observer with the least desgree of psyhological sophistication and insight.
If he lived on your block and made such statements about his neighbors, or a woman living nearby, he would be looking at restraining
orders.
He is an out-of-control abusive pig who belongs in an institution where a course of shock therapy might actually help him. I
reckon any basic psychological test would find that he has a least borderline personality and at worst is actually insane and
incapable of taking responsibility for the consequences of his action.
Bolton has permanent termporary insanity.
Letting this tortured, psychopathic individual run the military is itself an enormous crime, one of murderous negligence, one
for which Trump truly should and could be impeached. Congress must take all possible steps to get this man out of the Executive
Branch.
Threaten Trump with impeachment if he doesn't fire Bolton.
His appointment of Bolton is reckless negligence and endangers this country.
James , May 23, 2019 at 19:09
I wonder how good American politicians of the past, if there were any, would react to the appointment of this psychopath
as what he is now. Whom should be blamed for it? Donald Trump? The pro-Israeli lobbies? Or the American nation? A glance at
the man's face is enough to realize that he is deeply sick. To me, he doesn't look like a human being at all! He looks like
a monkey out of a stuffy room. Why don't psychotherapists do anything about him? Shouldn't he be hospitalized for the safety/security
of the world population? By the way, I wonder where Netanyahu, the psychopath's provoker, is. He has been very quiet for about
a month or so. Maybe he is waiting for the war to ignite without getting himself directly involved in it. Let Americans and
Iranians kill one another while he waits to pick up the fruit in the end.
Mork D , May 25, 2019 at 01:27
Where does the blame lie? Who hired him? Who's the chief of the executive branch? Who's a person who could actually fire
him (as he's so famous for doing on reality TV shows) instead of wringing his hands on friendly TV networks declaring he doesn't
want to actually go to war, but if he's 'forced' to, he'll erase Iran from the map?
Druid , May 26, 2019 at 03:16
He would have to get permission from Adelson and the Mercers first.
CitizenOne , May 24, 2019 at 20:52
Bolton and Pompeo are the only things keeping him from impeachment. As long as Trump satisfies the bloodthirsty war mongers
and the insatiable appetite of the MIC and the Pro Israel lobby and the Oil Lobby or Koch Industries he cannot lose. So far
Trump is bangin on all cylinders. I really think he knows what he needs to do to survive. All this impeachment talk is just
fantasy by the left dreaming about getting him out of office "somehow".
bjd , May 23, 2019 at 16:13
That the mono-maniacal psychopath Bolton is a walking exhibit of the Dunning–Kruger effect is no surprise to me. It is extra
frightening though.
Realist , May 23, 2019 at 16:00
What was Bolton's day job before he started mucking around in politics and foreign policy? Master waterboarder or testicular
electrificator in extraordinary renditions for the CIA? He seems the sort to have spent much time at Abu Ghraib, and not just
to take notes. Honestly, his major goals seem to be the eradication of entire cultures and societies, which will somehow redound
to the magnificence of the United States of America. Clearly a sociopathic personality. A lot in common with Cheney.
Jimmy G , May 23, 2019 at 15:57
Again the panic is stirred by .. The NYT! (The source of such good info regarding Russia gate) .
The statement regarding Bolton " ordering" anything is just one more example of the media and the intel bureaucrats trying to
put the President in a jam politically . (Remember how a month ago we were invading Venezuela?)
Bolton is doing nothing more than getting enough rope to hang himself, and the military intelligence service, congressional
and media Trumpophobes are willing to stir this to the very edge, and we all know Congress could (if it could act in good Constitutional
faith, rather than pretending to be the judicial branch) unite for the good of this country and Trump would be amenable to whatever
they came up with. Trump is far less of a warmonger than any POTUS we've had in a very long time.
Realist , May 23, 2019 at 16:18
If Congress is the only branch of government with the constitutional power to declare a war, surely it has the power to FORBID
the executive branch from fomenting such a war against their judgement.
In fact, wasn't the Boland Amendment such a legislative act passed with the intent of preventing the Reagan administration
from pursuing military action in Central America, most notably Nicaragua and El Salvador?
What's to prevent the Congress, if it were so inclined (which I doubt it is) to instruct the president (especially if he
seems trigger-happy) to refrain from initiating any unprovoked attacks upon Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or any other country,
for that matter?
Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 16:56
Ollie North worked for Reagan, didn't he?
RnM , May 25, 2019 at 17:27
Trump is very aware that 'Stache Bolton and Mike "Mumbles" Pompeo are significant threats to his re-election. Would not be
surprised to see them removed before January.
CitizenOne , May 25, 2019 at 21:02
The NYT has indeed supported wars but it is not alone nor is this a recent trend. There is a very old trend of the commercial
news establishments becoming war hawks and regurtitators of official propaganda whenever the USA wants to pick a fight. It goes
back to the period after the establishment of the nation when expansionism set its roots down and what grew out of that is pretty
much the same kind of nationalistic propaganda we see today.
I agree with your statement that Trump is far less vulnerable based on his history but I am sure that the war planners are
always concocting special information diets that are carefully prepared to appeal to the particular tastes of the leader of
the day. Whatever Trumps opinion is he will be surrounded by the hand picked lunatics of the day who will entice and enjoin
him to agree with plans for war based on their carefully prepared menu of propaganda specifically designed to be appealing to
the palate of whoever is in charge.
It is less certain that Trump's long history of opposing military action will have real staying power as he is served up
courses of a sumptuous meal prepared specially for his palate designed to engage him in support for military action all over
the World.
Trump is particularly susceptible to flattery and appeals to his greatness and his very stable genius. He wants to be the
great leader and for that he needs a plan to deal with the geopolitical situation in many countries.
Trump is a man who knows what to do too.
He advised Germany that it was a puppet of Russia until he didn't
He advised Teresa May how to do Brexit the right way until he didn't
He announced to the World he had forged deep connections with North Korea until he didn't
He had high hopes for an alliance with Russia until he didn't.
He specified the right type of fire fighting to be used to fight the Notre Dame Cathedral fire until he didn't
He wanted to walk away from the fight in Syria until he didn't
He wanted to walk away from the war in Syria again until he didn't
He wanted to cut the military budget until he didn't
Ordinarily if we were in the middle of a democratic presidency the press would be raising the "flip flopper" argument every
second of their available airtime.
Democrats are the flip floppers but never a republican even when he is. It all depends on the way the flips and the flops
land. If they land on conservative positions then a flop or a flip never occurred. With republicans, flip flopping is just a
corrective action to realign the president on the correct course. If it is a democrat then their hypocrisy and flip flopping
are broadcast 24/7 and are portrayed a fundamentally disqualifying events which demonstrate a fundamental lack of principles
and weakness of character deserving of condemnation. When errant republicans flip flop over to the "correct" vision they are
welcomed with open arms into the fold.
Trump wants to be accepted so badly that the democrats hounding him are in fact herding him into the fold of the conservatives
who will shelter him and support him at all costs and the media will never ever ever never call this flip flopping.
In short, if a political candidate shifts to the left his integrity will be destroyed as his character will be portrayed
as weak and built on shifting sands. He will be deemed not to be trusted like some loose cannon.
On the other hand, if a political candidate shifts to the right he will be greeted as a prodigal son returning to the fold
and will be welcomed with open arms.
So I am not as sure as you that Trump's background will be any indicator of his future ideas about how to succeed in the
environment he is in where both democrats by their antagonism and republicans by their defense of him both push him over to
the right.
He may once have been far less of a war hawk but politicians on both sides of the aisle are pushing him further to the right
every day.
Consortium News editor Joe Lauria may wish to contribute a follow up series of articles detailing the purity of pro-Israel
Lobby pathology exemplified by Bolton, Pompeo, and the beyond troubling Trump preferably before the next war.
Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 19:33
"the wider extent of pro-Israel Lobby pathology in the US government. "
That's it in a nutshell.
KiwiAntz , May 24, 2019 at 18:46
Thanks Joe for the great article. Bolton (aka the moustache) truly is a humourless, warmongering, depraved psycho? This is
a cowardly man who dodged the Vietnam draft as he didn't want to die in some foreign patty field! But this lunatic has no qualms
to send other peoples sons & daughters into a Iranian war zone as cannon fodder to satisfy his deluded & perverted bloodlust
to destroy Iran? If "the moustache" wants a War with Iran he should be forced to fight on the frontlines with his troops along
with POTUS Bonespurs Trump, another cowardly draft dodger? Let the moustache & the Dotard make a stand, like Jon Snow in the
Battle of the bastards, sword in hand, facing down the so called Iranian, bogeyman enemy, but this would never happen as cowards
& bastards like Bolton & Trump don't personally fight in the battles they start, they hide in safety in a Washington situation
room, as far away from any War zone as possible! If Bolton gets his War with Iran, Trump will pay the price for this suicide
mission because he would be blamed for the fallout of any Military defeat! America's already sorry record of Military humiliation
& defeat in Regime change operations around the Globe would reach a crescendo if they ever dared to try to attack & overthrow
Iran as it would be the endgame of the US Empire!
mark , May 23, 2019 at 22:28
Trump is just Israel's bitch.
incontinent reader , May 24, 2019 at 01:08
Good comment, Abe. We've missed you. Keep posting more of the same.
Zhu , May 25, 2019 at 01:37
We Americans were bloodthirsty long before Israel existed.
anon , May 25, 2019 at 06:35
What an absurd zionist troll post. Try it with someone dumb, Zhu.
Michael Steger , May 23, 2019 at 15:17
First Joe, McKinley did not implement American submission to British Imperialism, though it began with the end of Grant's
administration as with the twice elected Groucher Cleveland, but it's confirmation as US policy began with Teddy Roosevelt.
The Roosevelt Corollary destroyed JQA's Community of Principle in the Americas which should be known as the true Monroe Doctrine,
contrary to popular opinion today which has incorrectly replaced the Monroe Doctrine with the Roosevelt Corollary (as Bolton
is especially want to do). TR signalled the end of the Lincoln Era of American industrial development and global cooperation,
which was best represented by Grant, the most overlooked of great Presidents (and perhaps we see similarities of Grant to Trump
today). Bolton indeed is Captain Kangaroo, presiding over his Court as the Queen of No Hearts would in Alice's confrontation
with British rule once she penetrates behind the facade of British Lockean empiricism. With insight only equalled to Lincoln's,
who said "We can't fight two wars at once, so first the Confederacy and then the British," Trump has identified the fascist
nexus within our government as that same British foe, a nexus led by Brennan, Rice, Clapper, Jarrett, et al, which works on
behalf of what Eisenhower (another overlooked great President and General) called the Military Industrial Complex. The MIC is
a British Intelligence deployment to fundamentally undermine our Constitution and put the US into a state of perpetual war and
police surveillance. It is now over 70 years in the making, and is enforcing a new Cold War and attempted coup of our elected
Government, and yet, it may have finally found its match, not just in Trump, but in Trump's intended cooperation with Putin
of Russia and Xi of China. These three nations, along with Modi of India (just reelected) are a true threat to this rotten British
system, from Fabian liberals to Bolton chickenhawks, the true enemy is this British System. If we move on that effectively,
we may just have a chance to win this revolutionary moment now unfolding throughout the trans-Atlantic world. Let us return
to JQA's community of principle for the entire world. Let us work with Trump to end this fascist British nexus. Let us celebrate
our true heritage as Americans!
Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 16:51
Your comments read with interesting and well taken.
BUT: The bottom line is that Trump hired Bolton (and Pompeo) and has wound him up and set him loose goosewalking across the
globe.
Why?
The buck for Bolton's suicidal buffonery stops with Trump.
So, I can't see him as a genuine foe of the Deep State-MIC as you describe.
Michael Steger , May 23, 2019 at 18:10
Bolton is loyal to Trump, even though he is a failed chickenhawk. Look at McMaster, at the leaking, and outright betrayal
of the President. Same with Tillerson, betrayal. Pompeo and Bolton have ridiculous views and bloated war rhetoric, but they're
personally loyal, perhaps opportunistically, and even temporarily, but nonetheless right now they are, and when they're not,
I bet they're gone. But Trump does control the policy. Look at North Korea, any war? Media said there would be, then worked
to undermine a deal. Venezuela, war? They're talking in Norway now, how'd that happen? Syria, troops out? MIC, Dems and Media
opposed, and Trump called them out for the first time since Eisenhower! Pompeo to Sochi to see Putin, progress. How'd that happen?
Trump is fighting the MIC and too many good Americans are spinning so fast from the propaganda machine they can't see straight.
anon4d2 , May 24, 2019 at 18:40
Interesting, but it is easy for a president to fight the MIC: simply fire and arrest anyone who acts against efforts to control
them. He could send any federal enforcement agency, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, reserves, national guard, or even the Coast
Guard, Secret Service, DC police, or private guards to arrest them and prosecute any resisters as traitors. It is not one man
against the MIC.
And they cannot assassinate him once he has announced that intention, without exposing their hand and unleashing a generation
of purges and strict controls. If he is surrounded by traitors, he has only to say that and fire the lot of them. He could leak
that anonymously to Wikileaks or tweet it and they would be terrified.
Mork D , May 25, 2019 at 01:48
Bolton has been working DC bureaucracy like a pro for decades. He's using Trump like a marionette while he runs circles around
the amateur. He was helping orchestrate foreign wars of choice back when Trump was still playing a pretend boss on TV. Bolton
has no loyalty except as a facade for those he needs to suck up to.
Your examples of non-wars are terrific. Trump is amazing! – because he's running the government so badly that the State Dept
doesn't know what the Pentagon is doing doesn't know and vice versa. He chose to ignore the Iran nuclear deal, which had prevented
Iran from developing nuclear weapons. So now, the Iranians declare (out of self defense) that they're now going to pursue nuclear
weapons. Trump then says that he doesn't want to attack Iran, but they must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This
is a circular argument exactly of the type the MIC uses to engage in war. Pompeo then indicates that laughable, ineffectual
attempts at sabotage are most likely Iranian. This grave threat to our nation can't even do enough damage to an oil tanker to
make it take on water.
Just because someone fails to do something doesn't mean that they were against it the whole time. Maybe they're just awful
at it. Sure, Trump says some things that are heartening to the anti-war and anti-interventionist crowd. But the next day he'll
say something heartening to rabid neocons. He needs to grow a spine, but it's far too late. He's a dandy, a spoiled rich kid
fop who's never had to answer for his mishaps, because why, when you have inherited money and a stout legal team?
anon4d2 , May 24, 2019 at 19:06
The idea that "the MIC is a British Intelligence deployment" is fantastical, as the US MIC is several times the size of UK's
entire MIC, and such a secret could never be kept. The US MIC has engaged UK secret agencies to subvert the US Constitution
by serving as agents to pass intercepted US communications back to the US to pretend that the MIC didn't do it, or that it was
foreign intel. But that is a long way from UK controlling the US MIC.
There are certainly confluences of interests between the US and UK oligarchies, but I see no basis for the contention that
"American submission to British Imperialism began with the end of Grant's administration" when the US prosecuted Britain for
building the Alabama etc. to break the Union blockade, and was outraged that Britain considered recognition of the Confederacy
until it lost at Gettysburg. The US under TR was not submitting to anyone when it sent the Great White Fleet on tour, or when
it seized Cuba and the Philippines. Nor under Wilson when it stayed out of WWI until very late in the war, despite the Lusitania
loss. Nor under FDR when it stayed out of WWII until attacked, despite the passionate pleas of Churchill.
Some detailed argument with credible references would be needed to support those assertions.
Zhu , May 25, 2019 at 01:44
Scapegoating is real popular with lefties & rughties alike. American Exceptionalism forbids we ever accept respobility for
what we've done.
Zhu , May 25, 2019 at 01:45
No, the rest of humanity is not any better.
anon4d2 , May 25, 2019 at 06:48
The commenter was searching for causes, and some UK conspiracy is simply too far from any available evidence. In fact it
much appears to be a wild attempt to distract from the obvious causes including zionism, which you pretend is "scapegoating."
No, zionism is a principle corrupting factor in US politics, especially foreign policy.
If you don't see that, you must start learning the evidence, rather than relying on the presumption that it is mere scapegoating.
Otherwise you are serving their wrongful and racist tribal purposes, and others will presume that you know that.
Oscar Shank , May 26, 2019 at 07:24
Zhu knows it.
Vera Gottlieb , May 23, 2019 at 14:56
How much more peaceful the life on our entire planet would be if the Americans weren't around.
Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 16:58
Extend that to all humans, and the head of PETA would support the project.
David G. Horsman , May 23, 2019 at 17:16
I doubt that. Nature hates a void.
Bethany , May 24, 2019 at 17:50
Exactly. Very well put.
Abe , May 23, 2019 at 14:19
Brazilian diplomat Jose Bustani, the first director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
only served about one year of his second term.
Bustani was forced out by the U.S. government in April 2002 because he wanted international chemical weapons monitors inside
Iraq and thus was seen as impeding the US push for war against Iraq. The US accused Bustani of "advocacy of inappropriate roles
for the OPCW".
Since 2011, the United Nations has stood by a US-Saudi-Israeli Axis financed and armed the mercenary terrorist forces attacked
Syria. In addition to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, major support for terrorist mercenaries has provided
via NATO-member state Turkey, as well as Jordan. Israel has launched repeated air attacks and provided direct support for terrorist
forces in Syria.
From July 2010 to 2018, the Director-General of the OPCW was Turkish career diplomat Ahmet Uzumcu. Uzumcu served ambassador
to Israel from 1999 to 2002, and as the Permanent Representative of Turkey to NATO between 2002 and 2004.
Turkey has been the primary channel for mercenary terrorist forces assaulting the Syrian state. The remaining terrorist forces
in the Idlib Governorate continue to be supplied through Syria.
Since Uzumcu announced the creation of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria on 29 April 2014, not a single OPCW report
has acknowledged these basic facts concerning the conflict in Syria.
Following a consensus recommendation by the OPCW Executive Council in October 2017. Spanish career diplomat Fernando Arias
was appointed to replace Uzumcu as Director-General of the OPCW. Previously, Arias served as Ambassador of Spain to the Netherlands
and the Permanent Representative of Spain to the OPCW. He also has served as Permanent Representative of Spain to the United
Nations in New York.
Uzumcu, and now Bustani, obviously understand that the appropriate role of the OPCW is to provide propaganda support for
"regime change" operations, and to say nothing contrary to the "narrative" endorsed by the US-Saudi-Israeli Axis.
David G. Horsman , May 23, 2019 at 17:52
The OPCW has certainly disgraced themselves in Syria. What a sham.
Randal Marlin , May 23, 2019 at 13:48
John Bolton's questioner in the second clip should have made the distinction between deception used to lead the country into
war, and deception used to pursue a war already constitutionally declared and already underway.
In the first case there is a violation of democratic principle. When the people are the ultimate sovereign, they need to be
properly informed. They can agree to deception, like where and when D-Day will occur, during war; but not in the case of leading
the people into war. Lying to Congress is always unacceptable, and those who do lie to Congress should be made to suffer serious
penalties.
zhenry , May 24, 2019 at 02:13
I read a report that the aircraft carrier strike force and preparation of 120,000 US troops, to Persian Gulf was ordered
sometime ago and that Bolton took advantage of that fact to make it look that 'Bolton ordered it'?
vinnieoh , May 24, 2019 at 10:54
What I'd read is that the carrier strike force and bomber detachment were previously scheduled: there had been a previous
drawdown and this deployment represents a return to a level similar to the end of the Iraq war, and that does sound like Bolton/Pompeo
opportunism. The 120,000 troops plan sounds like something Bolton prodded pentagon scribes to produce. How to interpret when
Bolton says that then Trump denies it, and then a new troop deployment (1% of the previous) is announced/suggested/leaked? I
see it as Trump taking his dogs out for a walk to snarl at the neighbors.
David G , May 23, 2019 at 13:07
"Thus Bolton was the driving force to get a carrier strike force sent to the Persian Gulf and, according to The New York
Times, on May 14, it was he who 'ordered' a Pentagon plan to prepare 120,000 U.S. troops for the Gulf."
That the National Security Advisor, irrespective of whether the job is currently held by a lunatic like Bolton, may be giving
such orders should in and of itself be a subject of serious inquiry by Congress and the media.
The National Security Advisor is, as the title states, merely an advisor – not confirmed by the Senate, and therefore not,
in constitutional terms, an "officer of the United States" with the authority to carry out the policy of the government. Other
than his assistant fetching him lunch, nobody in government should be following Bolton's orders at all while he holds this job.
But this is nothing new. I had the same concern, on an even larger scale, during the first Bush Jr. administration when Cheney
was running around reshaping the government in his own warped image. Despite the Vice President's elected status, he has no
executive power under the Constitution – no power at all, in fact, except when sitting as President of the Senate. There was
a time when everyone knew that.
With all the perennial crowing we see about the greatness of the Constitution, and the mewling about how Trump is degrading
it, it would be nice if Congress and the media could spare a moment to care about whether the people giving orders to the world's
largest military and covert/intelligence apparatus are legally empowered to do so.
Ash , May 23, 2019 at 17:17
> That the National Security Advisor, irrespective of whether the job is currently held by a lunatic like Bolton,
> may be giving such orders should in and of itself be a subject of serious inquiry by Congress and the media.
It does kind of have an Alexander Haig flavor to it, doesn't it?
David G , May 23, 2019 at 22:08
When Bolton gets up and says "I'm in control here", I'm definitely finding a rock to hide under.
Zenobia van Dongen , May 23, 2019 at 13:06
The question that Joe Lauria asked of John Bolton, i.e. "If the United States and Britain had not overthrown a democratically
elected government in Iran in 1953 would the United States be today faced with a revolutionary government enriching uranium?"
seems to imply that Iran seeks revenge against the US for the CIA's 1953 coup d'état against prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq.
However the current leaders of Iran are not entitled to consider themselves the heirs of Mossadeq, nor are they morally justified
in avenging him, since the CIA coup relied largely on support from the very same clerical establishment that now rules Iran.
As a matter of fact in the 1950s and 60s Shia clerics in Iran were routinely considered CIA agents. Consequently the Iranian
elite's pretense of carrying on Mossadeq's anti-imperialist struggle is profoundly hypocritical. I grant that the current reactionary
clique that governs Iran defends Iran's sovereignty against US imperialism as Mossadeq did. But the underlying concept of the
Iranian nation is profoundly different. The present régime has no respect for the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty
that pervaded Iran's anti-imperialist struggle in the 1950s and was derived from the democratic ideals of the Persian constitutionalist
revolution of 1909. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Constitutional_Revolution
Indeed, Iran has no hesitation in crushing underfoot the aspirations to independence of other nations. It ruthlessly conducts
ethnic cleansing in Syria, commits assassinations in South America, and in general behaves with imperialist ruthlessness that
is moreover unmitigated by any concern for human rights or international law.
vinnieoh , May 23, 2019 at 14:27
As to your last paragraph please provide proof for your allegations. As to your second paragraph you assume to know the meaning
behind the question Mr. Lauria asked. Could it be possible (this I believe is more likely) that what Mr. Lauria meant or realizes
that absent the '53 coup would there now be an Islamic theocracy ruling Iran?
Again making the disclaimer that I'm no expert on the region or Iran particularly I have followed many leads of reading and
investigation to understand the ramifications of that seminal event (the '53 coup.) What I believe I've understood is that Iran
prior to and until the '53 coup was on its own unique trajectory of reclaiming its sovereignty and rejecting its status as a
(UK) colonial vassal. There seemed to be a somewhat fluid acceptance of the rising democratic movement of Mosaddeq et. al.,
a fading nod to the former royal house, and an acceptance of Shiite religiosity of some considerable social legitimacy.
So, three centers of power and influence working its unique way to an unique Iranian future.
With the US/UK engineered coup the imperialists destroyed the legitimate democratic evolution happening there. With the re-installation
of the Shah Reza Pahlavi as the puppet ruler of the US, that traditional center of power and legitimacy was likewise forever
delegitimized in the eyes of most Iranians. That sentiment was cemented with the creation of SAVAK by the US, UK, and Israel
to be the iron fist of the Shah and his new imperial master.
That left only one center of power or authority which retained legitimacy in the eyes of Iranians – the Shiite theocrats,
and that is why when Iranians kicked the US out it was the Islamic theocracy doing the booting. You are correct that there was
at least one Shiite cleric (I've forgotten his name,) jealous and fearful of the rising influence of democratic governance,
who is a known and recorded collaborator with the US/UK machinations of the coup. Without the help of the US/UK his part in
the affair would probably have been inconsequential.
It is not Iran that is funding and establishing Islamic madrasses in Pakistan, India, China, Indonesia, Africa and elsewhere.
It is the Wahhabist Sunnis and they preach intolerance and violent jihad. Furthermore, of the total global population of adherents
of Islam, 75% are Sunni affiliated, and 25% are Shiite affiliated. Those percentages hold true in the immediate region of the
ME as well. The repeated claims of Iranian desires of empire are a shibboleth emanating from KSA and UAE.
The leaders of the Islamic Revolution used Mossadegh's image to help get people on board against the Shah, The National Front
was allowed to be a party again for a short time, and a Street in Tehran was renamed post-revolution for Mohammad Mossadegh.
This was a cynical ploy by the Mullahs to get people on board with their revolution and make people believe that they were indeed
the true heirs of Mossadegh and committed to democracy. It was all a sham. The National Front was made illegal again at some
point in the 80s, and the street named for Mossadegh was renamed around the same time. These people are the heirs of the Shah
whether they like it or not.
anon4d2 , May 23, 2019 at 16:59
Joe's question points out that, had the US not overthrown Mossadegh, there would have been a secular democratic government.
That is true throughout the Mideast, where in the 1950s-70s the US supported radical Islamic movements that suppressed secular
movements and overthrew secular governments, pretending that the USSR was moving in. There was no evidence of USSR interest
there, as it was preoccupied with such factions in its central Asian republics, and apparently only some arms from the USSR
in Egypt were ever found as "evidence."
Similar US actions have continued to date, almost 30 years after the collapse of the USSR, the US always supporting fanatics
against moderates like Assad and Ghaddafi, and pretending to support "democracy."
Compare the US support of Saudi Arabia, a fanatical fundamentalist monarchy engaged in terrorism throughout the region, including
against their only neighbor that defends minority rights, Syria. Again falsely claiming the need to protect oil supply, which
it can buy anywhere without bombing anyone, like any other oil buyer. Again falsely claiming to support democracy which it overthrows
everywhere at the pleasure of its own oligarchy, always to "protect Israel" or attack socialism, which is always to get political
bribes.
There is no evidence of any "ethnic cleansing" by Iran in Syria or elsewhere. Where do you get that idea? Iran is majority
Shiah, defending the majority Sunni population of Syria from Sunni fundamentalists. You certainly have no evidence that Iran
"commits assassinations in South America" or opposes "aspirations to independence of other nations" and made that up to deceive
others. Your comments on this site have been knowingly false.
zhenry , May 24, 2019 at 03:44
The above, re the current Iranian religious govt, very informative, thankyou.
Re Joe's article I cannot take seriously that Trump is against war and the Deep State.
If Trumps rhetoric during his electioneering, supporting the middle class (deeply deprived after the US corporations abandoned
them for low paid Chinese labour) was in any way honest he would not have chosen the cabinet he did (and keeps on choosing).
Trump has not chosen one cabinet member that would support that supposed sympathy for the middle class.
Reporting that assumes Trump is fighting for moderation (against his own cabinet) and to establish policies in the direction
of that sympathy, is without evidence, it seems to me, regardless of what he might suggest to Fox News.
Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 17:00
"The present régime has no respect for the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty that pervaded Iran's anti-imperialist
struggle in the 1950s and was derived from the democratic ideals of the Persian constitutionalist revolution of 1909."
And the American government has equal respect for the Constitution.
Bolton didn't order a carrier group to the Persian Gulf. He doesn't have the authority. The carrier group left because of
the deployment was already planned. Bolton does not have the power that has been ascribed to him. He is a grandiose clown who
knows how to play the press. I don't think he will have his job six months from now.
David G , May 23, 2019 at 12:16
"At the time of Bolton's appointment in April 2018, Tom Countryman predicted to The Intercept that if Iran resumed enrichment
after the U.S. left the deal, it 'would be the kind of excuse that a person like Bolton would look to to create a military provocation
or direct attack on Iran.' In response to ever tightening sanctions, Iran said that it would indeed restart partial nuclear
enrichment."
Two problems with this part of the article:
• The link in the main text here goes to an Intercept article about Bolton, but it has no mention of Tom Countryman, or even
of Iran.
• It isn't accurate to say that Iran may now, or is saying it will, "resume" or "restart" nuclear enrichment, since it never
ceased, nor did it ever commit to cease, such activity. The JCPOA merely imposed strict *limits* and monitoring on nuclear enrichment
and stockpiling, some of which Iran is saying it will now depart from.
I also disagree with the imputation elsewhere in the article that Donald Trump has a good understanding of real estate. His
disastrous, decades-long record in that business suggests otherwise. But I suppose some people will always believe what they
see on TV.
lou e , May 23, 2019 at 12:06
Creeping fascism works like fishing with a rod and reel. You hook the fish and it runs off 100 ft of line . You reel in 50
ft and the fish takes 30 feet back. Do the Math! Some times burning down the village IS the only way to get rid of the infestation.
Bit hard on the USSA, but as Ben Franklin put it you have a democratic republic IF ypu can Keep It.
Remember at an earlier time with Bolton, someone described him as a kiss up kick down kind of guy, i.e., a real jerk. I defended
Trump against Russiagate because it was a threat to the office of the president. Unless, he gets his head straight, his "political"
moves in the Middle East and Southwest Asia can spin out of control. He is not negotiating a new deal with some city to build
another hotel, and his rhetoric makes him sound like that is the way he thinks he should act with other countries.
One can defend him by saying maybe it will work, but then maybe not and it is not a matter of your target taking his papers
and leaving the room.
Great article, Mr. Lauria. Have you posted your resume on your site? Interested in your confrontation with Bolton.
Trump wants to be reelected more that being the President but in his defense we know what he will face if he decides to enter
into honest negotiations. He's going to have a heck of a time finding people to cover his back. He can count on one presidential
aspirant, Tulsi Gabbard but she's on the other side.
Jeff Harrison , May 23, 2019 at 11:42
If we have to rely on Thump for anything other than social controls, we're screwed.
David G , May 23, 2019 at 11:40
These personal reminiscences of Bolton at the U.N. by Joe Lauria unfortunately only confirm the man's very public record.
The fact that such a creature has been accepted for so long in the heart of U.S. foreign "policy" is yet more evidence that
the country's crisis of political culture started long before Trump came on the scene.
I don't quite accept the slight comfort implied in the formulations here that this time Bolton has "gone too far", or "flown
too high", since to me they imply that there is some moral or rational bedrock that he has struck beneath which the establishment
is not willing to go.
I don't think that's true, as a general proposition. For example, the U.S. continues less noisily but inexorably on its long-term
collision course with China, which will be even more catastrophic than war with Iran, not to mention the ultimate one with the
planet's environmental limits.
For me it's enough that, for a number of contingent reasons, Bolton's (and MBS's and Netanyahu's) lunge at Iran has fallen
flat with both U.S. and European policy and media elites – for now, and I hope forever.
I just called WH 202-456-1111 to tell President Trump that Bolton should be fired; had to wait 8 min to talk. Trump certainly
has lots of problems, but he'll have plenty more if he starts a war! Pox Americana!
Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 16:58
Great idea.
I'll do the same.
vinnieoh , May 23, 2019 at 11:04
Thank you Mr. Lauria. I'm tending to believe that not only has Bolton flown too high, but Trump's predictable method of trying
to get what he wants was completely miscalculated wrt Iran. There is no better treaty or deal to be had concerning keeping Iran
from developing a nuclear weapon. The failures of the JCPOA that Trump is probably griping about all have to do with matters
of Iran's necessary and legitimate right to security and self-defense. No sane nation would willingly give in to this bullying.
Thanks again.
vinnieoh , May 23, 2019 at 11:44
Also, wrt Trump's predictable patterns, note that little if anything has changed regarding the US and the DPRK, so if he
is a crafty and effective negotiator I'm having a hard time seeing it.
David G. Horsman , May 23, 2019 at 18:22
Good example Vinnieoh. NK and SK are reaching out and (more importantly) shoving out the US. More winning.
I love Trump. He is useful. Fascism, NAFTA, generic racism you name it, he really shines a light on issues.
Here again. (Currently) SA, GAZA, Israel, Syria and of course Iran. Hell, the entire region. What a train wreck he is.
What about the dollar? The EU? Yikes.
By gosh this man could single handedly take down an empire! MAGA!
Well done, Joe Lauria. Of course our dilemma is Donald Trump says one thing and contradicts himself 5 minutes later. You
could say he "changes his mind" but I do not think his mind is stable to begin with. He's far too nuts to put any faith in for
"doing the right thing,"
Bolton and his neoconservative pox on the world serve the interests of the war machine and fossil fuel corporations. When
will be rid of them? When We the People grow a set of testicles and throw them all into prison. Trump isn't going to save us,
but he might let Bolton get us all killed.
Seems that Trump is so small minded that what we observe cannot be explained mechanistically, we need quantum mechanics.
Rather that a particular state of mind we have a stochastic distribution, wave patterns and spin.
Yes, Joe Lauria has presented the problem very well.
A major factor is certainly the persuasiveness of the NSC and other MIC entities which surround the president, and comprise
much of official DC. Try persuading anyone in the MIC that war is ever inappropriate: they are all full of extreme scorn and
false accusations, and have endless "evidence" of threats behind every tree, and rationales to attack this or at least that,
just to make "statements" and "warnings" to invisible foreign monsters. The MIC is a completely and permanently logic-proof
subculture of bullying, which bullies every member of its own tribe to line up behind tyrants like Bolton and a million other
puerile bullies devoid of humanity.
No doubt you know that this was all well understood by the founders of the US, who restricted federal military powers to
repelling invasions and knew that any standing military was a threat to democracy. The Federalist Papers should be required
reading in the US. All of those understandings were gradually lost after the War of 1812 and the 1820s, as the founders died
off. As the US became confident that it could repel any invasion, it lost the sense of the necessity of unity and cooperation
of regions, and Congress degenerated into a battle of intransigent factions leading to the completely unnecessary Civil War.
With the ebullient emergence of the middle class, no effort was made to correct the defects of the Constitution in failing to
protect the institutions of democracy from the rising power of economic concentrations. With WWI and WWII, the power of oligarchy
over mass media was consolidated, and by WWII the oligarchy and MIC effectively controlled elections, mass media, and the judiciary,
the tools of democracy. Democracy has been a facade ever since.
The US has zero security problems that the MIC has not created, and could at any time re-purpose 80% of the MIC to developing
infrastructure in the poorest nations with positive effects upon its security. Had it done so since WWII, we would have rescued
the poorest half of humanity from poverty, ignorance, malnutrition, and disease, and would have had a true American Century.
Instead we have killed over 20 million innocents and mortgaged the lives of our children to serve the infantile psychopaths
of the MIC.
The solution is not only to eliminate the 2000-member NSC, cut the military by at least 80 percent, prohibit acts of war
or surveillance by the executive branch, tax the rich so that no one has income above upper middle class, and demand amendments
to the Constitution restricting funding of the mass media and elections to limited and registered individual donations. We also
desperately need a fourth branch of federal government, which I am calling the College of Policy Debate, to conduct moderated
textual debates of policy issues in all regions, protecting and representing every viewpoint, in which all views are challenged
and must respond, and all parties must come to common terms. The CPD should produce commented debate summaries available to
the public with mini-quizzes and discussion groups. Without that rational analysis and access to the core debates, we do not
have a democracy at all, we are all no more than the fools and pawns of these oligarchy scammers, who must be actively excluded
from all government capacities.
Sorry for the lecture.
Linda Wood , May 24, 2019 at 01:59
Please don't apologize, Sam F. Your brilliant and humane words give me hope at a time in which I am in shock at the blatancy
of fascism in our government.
Doggrotter , May 23, 2019 at 10:33
Where is a drone strike when you need one?
OlyaPola , May 23, 2019 at 10:23
" seemed to always think he was the smartest person in the room."
Useful fools are often most useful when they are believers that they are not fools.
Once upon a time there was a discussion of which of the opponents' should be proposed for the Nobel Peace Prize – the list
being relatively long.
After extensive analysis and discussion the short-list consisted of two opponents in alphabetical order Mr. John Bolton and
Mr. Karl Rove.
However in light of the notion "Do you think your opponents are as stupid as you are? " the proposal question was left in
abeyance, not only as a function of decorum but also through understanding that "Useful fools are often most useful when they
are believers that they are not fools." and that even small dogs can seem tall when you are lying on your stomach.
OlyaPola , May 24, 2019 at 17:33
Since omniscience can't exist perhaps Mr. Bolton was/is subject to misrepresentation and misunderstanding?
"Pompeo told a radio interviewer after the briefing that the U.S. had still not determined who attacked two Saudi, a Norwegian
and an Emirati oil tanker in the Gulf last week, which bore the hallmarks of a provocation. Pompeo said "it seems like it's
quite possible that Iran was behind" the attacks."
What possible advantage could accrue to Iran from putting a few dents in the ships? Smells of another false flag.
I would not be so sure. A delicate signal that Iran has more capabilities concerning stopping in-out-Gulf traffic than naive
people like Bolton realize has a sobering potential. By the way of contrast, what kind of black flag it is if it is instantly
put in doubt, "we do not know" etc. When there were "chemical incidents" in Syria, no one in Washington claimed the need for
more facts, uncertainty etc.
Instead, UAE initially denied that it happened at all, subsequently, together with KSA, they did not have any "certain knowledge".
Somehow no government appears to promote the incident. Even USA.
BTW, the allegation that Iran is placing missiles on fishing boats staggers the mind. First of all, "missile boats" of which
Iran has plenty are small ships, BUT NOT VERY small, ca. 500-800 tons, which are fast, 40 kt, but not as fast as their predecessors,
torpedo boats (200-300 tons, 50-60 kt). They are still faster than any of the larger naval vessels, can trail them, and attack
from small distance in the case of start of hostilities. That Iran places missiles on such boats can be learned from videos
proudly provided by PressTV.ir.
Using "fishing boats" for that purpose is dubious, and the largest question mark would be: WHY? The reason that missile boats
are larger and heavier than torpedo boats is that you need more stability to launch missiles than torpedoes. Then you need a
radar etc. Placing missiles on fishing boats would be a waste of missiles. Hardly an escalation.
OlyaPola , May 23, 2019 at 12:47
"Hardly an escalation."
Perhaps you are being deflected by framing?
One of the escalations is the escalation of belief in, requirement of, and resort to, the dumbed-downess of the "target audience".
One of the salient questions being deflected is why, and as ever investigation requires some knowledge of Mr. Heisenberg
and his principles.
mark , May 23, 2019 at 22:34
Perhaps the Iranians are putting missiles on fishing boats to stun the fish and catch them that way. Fishing boats aren't
exactly very fast.
Anyone who actually believes the oil tanker incidents were carried by Iran should seek an immediate consultation with their
doctor. These blatant false flags clearly are the work of fools and Iranians are not fools.
Brian , May 23, 2019 at 17:22
Exactly. According navel personnel, Iran has been using fishing boats to transfer rockets from land to it's vessels for years,
supposedly because the gulf is too shallow. I don't have hydrographic maps of the area, anyone know if this is true?
Clearly, Persian Gulf has routes for the largest ships on Earth, but the supply bases for missiles may be away from ports,
and it would make sense to place them so they are not easily accessible to a big ship navy, and in general, to disperse them.
Tim , May 26, 2019 at 06:43
"Thomas"
> These blatant false flags clearly are the work of fools
Since neither you nor I know who did it, and there are a whole slew of plausible suspects, we don't know why they did it,
either. So it is silly to claim they are fools.
Since the Saudis and UAE are in the midst of waging war on Yemen, the most obvious suspects are their enemies there, al-Ansara.
(And by the way, contrary to what another commentator claimed, it was not a "few dents", but a gaping hole in the hull just
below the waterline. And since the local authorities spoke of an impact by an unidentified object, these were presumably torpedo
strikes.)
OlyaPola , May 26, 2019 at 07:58
"What possible advantage could accrue to Iran from putting a few dents in the ships?"
Quite a few including but not limited to further data on the opponents' perception of what constitutes plausible belief for
the opponents' target audience, and the opponents' increasing resort to, amplitude, scope and velocity of "misrepresentations".
As is the case with the benefits of dumbing down not accruing solely to those actively engaged in dumbing down, the benefits
of creation and implementation of "false flags" do not accrue solely to those engaged in "false flags", and are enhanced when
the creators and implementers of "false flags" are immersed in amalga of projection and notions of sole/prime agency, facilitating
potential benefits to many others not restricted to Iran.
John Bolton is a True Believer. The True Believer mindset is manifest in terrorist acts.
True Believers have signed onto the ideology that dictates that True Believers must act in
any way to oppose their perceived enemy. War is not a last option for the True Believer.
Terrorist attacks are not beyond the possible actions of the True Believer. The True Believer
has one goal which is to defeat the perceived enemy at all costs and which will use all means
to do so including violent attacks on innocent persons.
Terrorists are usually members of organizations that have a True Believer mentality and
can rationalize unspeakable acts of terror in order to wipe out innocents if that will
further their cause.
What is the advantage of enlisting True Believers and how do they further the causes of
their affiliated organizations? That is the same question that we ask about terrorist
organizations that imagine and create violent acts in order to fulfill the plans of the
terrorist organization.
What is the motivation of a terrorist to strap on an explosive vest and wander into a
crowd of innocent people and detonate their explosives? Why are they willing to commit
suicide in order to kill a whole bunch of people that they have no quarrel with?
The answer is that they are True Believers in their cause and will do anything to advance
the agenda of their affiliated organizations including murder.
The problem we face today is the ideological domination of opposing forces which will
absolutely send Kamikaze's to their death in order to win.
It works both ways. The US is determined to wipe out opposition to its interests even if
that means that warships will rain down explosives on anyone they remotely suspect is an
enemy of the ideology of the West. We are willing to go to war with our perceived enemies
even if it means that millions of innocents will be killed in the process of defeating our
ideologically opposed enemies.
On the other side the ideological goals of the countries we attack is also aligned to
commit mass atrocities and use of illegal weapons in order to win their bid to destroy the
United States or its allies notably Israel.
There are True Believers on each side that are willing to inflict mass casualties on the
other in order to preserve their ideology.
Iran is surely guilty of vowing the destruction of Israel and the US is also guilty of
vowing the destruction of Iran. Each ideology depends on True Believers to take the stakes to
the ultimate goal of annihilation of the enemy.
We have a choice in this. We can decide whether or not the differences in ideology are
worth war.
The big issue we face is whether or not we trust those opposed to our policies and actions
will try diplomacy despite historical diplomatic failures on both sides leading to the clash
of ideologies and ending in a military solution. I say "we trust" because we are also on the
line to trust the opposition with plenty of history which has shown that diplomacy doesn't
work.
The even bigger issue is the geopolitical strategy of nations which seek to control huge
natural resources like oil. This issue is at the top of every national agenda of oil states
and is the reason we quarrel with oil rich nations that seek to place ideological political
restrictions on the free flow of oil or depend on the money provided by the sale of the
resources to advance an agenda which is opposed to the West. It is the reason that Iran seeks
to dominate the politics of the region and intervene when we try to interfere with their
economic output with sanctions based on ideological differences that end in official US
sanctions which are the economic equivalent of warfare on Iran.
We see economic sanctions on Iran as the least violent way of dissuading them from
carrying out their anti western agenda especially their anti Israel agenda which includes
lots of funding for the True Believers (terrorists) who are willing to die for the "Cause" to
destroy Israel.
The Iranians see sanctions as a an unwarranted threat to their economy and are even more
determined to fund groups that try to defeat the Western policies that include support for
Israel they see as an illegal foreign power occupying Muslim lands.
It is no surprise that the tensions in the Middle East have resulted in the rise of the
True Believers on both sides based equally on economic and ideological differences. Each side
is steeped in the belief that the survival of their culture and their economy is at stake.
There can be little doubt that these differences amount to a potential powder keg.
Layered on top of the clash is the historical realization that compromise and diplomacy
have failed in the past and that the failure of diplomacy has resulted in war. Neville
Chamberlain's efforts to secure "peace within our time" by capitulating to German demands are
seared on everyone who has a responsibility to prevent war. It was a huge mistake to believe
that Hitler would abide by a piece of paper. Huge mistake is an understatement for the
millions who lost their lives.
We need to use historical facts to guide future actions. Prevention of war via diplomacy
has been thoroughly debunked by historical facts such as WWII. The belief of Western nations
and their content that promises of aggressors promising peace would be honored has a
historical and factual basis proving that the peaceful approach and the trust in aggressors
to abide with peace plans leads to World War, death, destruction etc. WWII was certainly a
formative event for the West which has since forged its disdain for diplomacy based on the
history of world war.
Enter Donald Trump, President of the United States of America. A tragically flawed man who
is just as tragically flawed as all of the rest of us as the leader of our nation. We are so
tragically flawed in so many ways we cannot count them all. We wanted a president who was
first and foremost a businessman. We wanted a populist president as we always do but we got a
rich and privileged president who has done his level best to support the rich which is not
exactly a populist notion by filling the swamp rather than draining it. We have a president
that calls all the news "fake" but who also spends his time in conversations with the right
wing media never assuming that right wing views of the news of the day might just be the real
fake news. Fake news to him is talk from the left.
Where does all this end up? It is anybody's guess.
"... The neocon faction in the US is usually (and reasonably) regarded as the motivator behind much of the western aggression in the Middle East. ..."
"... Granted the US has been looking for excuses to intervene ever more overtly in Syria since 2013, and in that sense this Douma "initiative" is a continuation of their longterm policy. It's also true Russia was warning just such a false flag would be attempted in early March. But in the intervening month the situation on the ground has changed so radically that such an attempt no longer made any sense. ..."
"... A false flag in early March, while pockets of the US proxy army were still holding ground in Ghouta would have enabled a possible offensive in their support which would prevent Ghouta falling entirely into government hands and thereby also maintain the pressure on Damascus. A false flag in early April is all but useless because the US proxy army in the region was completely vanquished and nothing would be gained by an offensive in that place at that time. ..."
"... The US media has been similarly, and uncharacteristically divided and apparently unsure. Tucker Carlson railed against the stupidity of attacking Syria. Commentators on MSNBC were also expressing intense scepticism of the US intent and fear about possible escalation. ..."
"... The official story is a hot mess of proven falsehoods, contradictions, implausible conspiracy theories, more falsehoods and inexplicable silences were cricket chirps tell us all we need to know. ..."
"... The UK government has lied and evaded on every key aspect. ..."
"... Indeed if current claims by Russian FM Lavrov turn out to be true, a "novichok" (whatever that precisely means in this case) may not have been the only substance found in those samples, and a compound called "BZ", a non-lethal agent developed in Europe and America, has been discovered and suppressed in the OPCW report (more about that later). ..."
"... The Skripals themselves were announced to be alive and out of danger mere days after claims they were all but certain to die. Yulia, soon thereafter, apparently called her cousin Viktoria only to subsequently announce, indirectly through the helpful agency of the Metropolitan Police, that she didn't want to talk to her cousin – or anyone else – at all. ..."
"... She is now allegedly discharged from hospital and has "specially trained officers helping to take care of" her in an undisclosed location. A form or words so creepily sinister it's hard to imagine how they were ever permitted the light of day. ..."
"... If a false flag chemical attack had taken place in Syria at the time Russia predicted, just a week or two after the Skripal poisoning, a lot of the attention that's been paid to the Skripals over the last month would likely have been diverted. Many of the questions being asked by Russia and in the alt media may never have been asked as the focus of the world turned to a possible superpower stand-off in the Middle East. ..."
"... So, could it be the Skripal event was never intended to last so long in the public eye? Could it be that it was indeed a false flag, or a fake event, as many have alleged, planned as a sketchy prelude to, or warm up act for a bigger chemical attack in Syria, scheduled for a week or so later in mid-March – just around the time Russia was warning of such a possibility? ..."
"... This would explain why the UK may have been pushing for the false flag to happen (as claimed by Russia) even after it could no longer serve much useful purpose on the ground, and why the Douma "attack" seems to have been so sketchily done by a gang on the run. The UK needed the second part to happen in order to distract from the first. ..."
"... If this is true, Theresa May and her cabinet are currently way out on a limb even by cynical UK standards. Not only have they lied about the Skripal event, but in order to cover up that lie they have promoted a false flag in Syria, and "responded" to it by a flagrant breach of international and domestic law. Worst of all, if the Russians aren't bluffing, they have some evidence to prove some of the most egregious parts of this. ..."
"... But even if some or all of our speculation proves false, and even if the Russian claims of UK collusion with terrorists in Syria prove unfounded, May is still guilty of multiple lies and has still waged war without parliamentary approval. ..."
"... The UK were the most vocal about Syria, and desperately tried to drum up support over Skripal, but it all came to nothing much in the end. ..."
"... Theresa May's political career still hangs by a thread, and her "Falklands moment", at best, staved off the inevitable for a few months. A washout in the EU elections, a very real threat from Farage's Brexit party, and rumblings inside her own party, make her position as unstable as ever. ..."
"... In the US, generally speaking, it seems that the Trump admin – or at least whichever interested parties currently have control of the wheels of government – have called time on war in Syria. Instead, they've moved on to projects in Venezuela and North Korea, and even war with Iran. ..."
"... The failure of the Douma false flag to cause the war it was meant to cause, and the vast collection of evidence that suggests it was a false flag, should be spread far and wide. Not just because it's a truth which vindicates the smeared minority in the alternate media. ..."
In view of the latest revelations from the leaked report, which seem to prove that at least some elements of the Douma "chemical
attack" were entirely staged, we want to take look back at the chaotic events of Spring 2018.
What was the agenda behind the Douma false flag?
Why was the US response seemingly token and ineffective?
Why was the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson fired?
What agenda tied the Skripal case to the Douma attack?
The following is an extract from an article by Catte originally published April 14th last year, which takes on a greater weight
in light of certain evidence – not only that the Douma attack was faked, but that the OPCW is compromised.
The neocon faction in the US is usually (and reasonably) regarded as the motivator behind much of the western aggression
in the Middle East.
Since at least 2001 and the launch of the "War on Terror" the US has led the way in finding or creating facile excuses to fight
oil wars and hegemonic wars and proxy wars in the region. But this time the dynamics look a little different.
This time it really looks as if the UK has been setting the pace of the "response".
The fact (as stated above) that Mattis was apparently telegraphing his own private doubts a)about the verifiability of the
attacks, and b)about the dangers of a military response suggests he was a far from enthusiastic partaker in this adventure.
Trump's attitude is harder to gauge. His tweets veered wildly between unhinged threats and apparent efforts at conciliation.
But he must have known he would lose (and seemingly has lost) a great part of his natural voter base (who elected him on a no-more-war
mandate) by an act of open aggression that threatened confrontation with Russia on the flimsiest of pretexts.
Granted the US has been looking for excuses to intervene ever more overtly in Syria since 2013, and in that sense this
Douma "initiative" is a continuation of their longterm policy. It's also true Russia was warning just such a false flag would
be attempted in early March. But in the intervening month the situation on the ground has changed so radically that such an attempt
no longer made any sense.
A false flag in early March, while pockets of the US proxy army were still holding ground in Ghouta would have enabled
a possible offensive in their support which would prevent Ghouta falling entirely into government hands and thereby also maintain
the pressure on Damascus. A false flag in early April is all but useless because the US proxy army in the region was completely
vanquished and nothing would be gained by an offensive in that place at that time.
You can see why Mattis and others in the administration might be reluctant to take part in the false flag/punitive air strike
narrative if they saw nothing currently to be gained to repay the risk. They may have preferred to wait for developments and plan
for a more productive way of playing the R2P card in the future.
The US media has been similarly, and uncharacteristically divided and apparently unsure. Tucker Carlson railed against
the stupidity of attacking Syria. Commentators on MSNBC were also expressing intense scepticism of the US intent and fear about
possible escalation.
The UK govt and media on the other hand has been much more homogeneous in advocating for action. No doubts of the type expressed
by Mattis have been heard from the lips of an UK government minister. Even May, a cowardly PM, has been (under how much pressure?)
voicing sterling certitude in public that action HAD to be taken.
Couple this with the – as yet unverified – claims by Russia of direct UK involvement in arranging the Douma "attack", and the
claims by Syria that the perps are in their custody, and a tentative storyline emerges. It's possible this time there were other
considerations in the mix beside the usual need to "be seen to do something" and Trump's perpetual requirement to appease the
liberal Russiagaters and lunatic warmongers at home. Maybe this time it was also about helping the UK out of a sticky problem.
THE SKRIPAL CONSIDERATION
Probably the only thing we can all broadly agree on about the Skripal narrative is that it manifestly did not go according
to plan. However it was intended to play out, it wasn't this way. Since some time in mid to late March it's been clear the entire
thing has become little more than an exercise in damage-limitation, leak-plugging and general containment.
The official story is a hot mess of proven falsehoods, contradictions, implausible conspiracy theories, more falsehoods
and inexplicable silences were cricket chirps tell us all we need to know.
The UK government has lied and evaded on every key aspect.
It lied again and again about the information Porton Down had given it
Its lawyers all but lied to Mr Justice Robinson about whether or not the Skripals had relatives in Russia in an unscrupulous
attempt to maintain total control of them, or at least of the narrative.
It is not publishing the OPCW report on the chemical analyses, and the summary of that report reads like an exercise in
allusion and weasel-wording. Even the name of the "toxic substance" found in the Skripals' blood is omitted, and the only thing
tying it to the UK government's public claims of "novichok" is association by inference and proximity.
Indeed if current claims by Russian FM Lavrov turn out to be true, a "novichok" (whatever that precisely means in this
case) may not have been the only substance found in those samples, and a compound called "BZ", a non-lethal agent developed in
Europe and America, has been discovered and suppressed in the OPCW report (more about that later).
None of the alleged victims of this alleged attack has been seen in public even in passing since the event. There is no film
or photographs of DS Bailey leaving the hospital, no film or photographs of his wife or family members doing the same. No interviews
with Bailey, no interviews with his wife, family, distant relatives, work colleagues.
The Skripals themselves were announced to be alive and out of danger mere days after claims they were all but certain to
die. Yulia, soon thereafter, apparently called her cousin Viktoria only to subsequently announce, indirectly through the helpful
agency of the Metropolitan Police, that she didn't want to talk to her cousin – or anyone else – at all.
She is now allegedly discharged from hospital and has "specially trained officers helping to take care of" her in an undisclosed
location. A form or words so creepily sinister it's hard to imagine how they were ever permitted the light of day.
Very little of this bizarre, self-defeating, embarrassing, hysterical story makes any sense other than as a random narrative,
snaking wildly in response to events the narrative-makers can't completely control.
Why? What went wrong? Why has the UK government got itself into this mess? And how much did the Douma "gas attack" and subsequent
drive for a concerted western "response" have to do with trying to fix that?
IS THIS WHAT HAPPENED?
If a false flag chemical attack had taken place in Syria at the time Russia predicted, just a week or two after the Skripal
poisoning, a lot of the attention that's been paid to the Skripals over the last month would likely have been diverted. Many of
the questions being asked by Russia and in the alt media may never have been asked as the focus of the world turned to a possible
superpower stand-off in the Middle East.
So, could it be the Skripal event was never intended to last so long in the public eye? Could it be that it was indeed
a false flag, or a fake event, as many have alleged, planned as a sketchy prelude to, or warm up act for a bigger chemical attack
in Syria, scheduled for a week or so later in mid-March – just around the time Russia was warning of such a possibility?
Could it be this planned event was unexpectedly canceled by the leading players in the drama (the US) when the Russians called
them out and the rapid and unexpected fall of Ghouta meant any such intervention became pointless at least for the moment?
Did this cancelation leave the UK swinging in the wind, with a fantastical story that was never intended to withstand close
scrutiny, and no second act for distraction?
So, did they push on with the now virtually useless "chemical attack", botch it (again), leaving a clear evidence trail leading
back to them? Did they then further insist on an allied "response" to their botched false flag in order to provide yet more distraction
and hopefully destroy some of that evidence?
This would explain why the UK may have been pushing for the false flag to happen (as claimed by Russia) even after it could
no longer serve much useful purpose on the ground, and why the Douma "attack" seems to have been so sketchily done by a gang on
the run. The UK needed the second part to happen in order to distract from the first.
It would explain why the US has been less than enthused by the idea of reprisals. Because while killing Syrians to further
geo-strategic interests is not a problem, killing Syrians (and risking escalation with Russia) in order to rescue an embarrassed
UK government is less appealing.
And it would explain why the "reprisals" when they came were so half-hearted.
If this is true, Theresa May and her cabinet are currently way out on a limb even by cynical UK standards. Not only have
they lied about the Skripal event, but in order to cover up that lie they have promoted a false flag in Syria, and "responded"
to it by a flagrant breach of international and domestic law. Worst of all, if the Russians aren't bluffing, they have some evidence
to prove some of the most egregious parts of this.
This is very bad.
But even if some or all of our speculation proves false, and even if the Russian claims of UK collusion with terrorists
in Syria prove unfounded, May is still guilty of multiple lies and has still waged war without parliamentary approval.
This is a major issue. She and her government should resign. But it's unlikely that will happen.
So what next? There is a sense this is a watershed for many of the parties involved and for the citizens of the countries drawn
into this.
Will the usual suspects try to avoid paying for their crimes and misadventures by more rhetoric, more false flags, more "reprisals"?
Or will this signal some other change in direction?
We'll all know soon enough.
* * *
Back to today...
...and while things have moved on, we're still puzzling over all the same issues.
What was the purpose of the Skripal attack?
What was the original plan of the Douma attack?
Is there, as it appears, an internal power struggle in the Trump administration?
Has that resolved? Who is running the United States?
Seeing as the OPCW has been shown to cover-up evidence in Douma, can we trust them on Skripal? Or anything else?
Speaking of which, where on Earth IS Sergei Skripal?
All these questions stand, and are important, but more important than all of that is the lesson: They tried it before, and just
because it didn't work doesn't mean they won't try it again.
Last spring, the Western powers showed they will deploy a false flag if they need too, for domestic or international motives.
And they have the motives right now.
The UK were the most vocal about Syria, and desperately tried to drum up support over Skripal, but it all came to nothing
much in the end.
Theresa May's political career still hangs by a thread, and her "Falklands moment", at best, staved off the inevitable for
a few months. A washout in the EU elections, a very real threat from Farage's Brexit party, and rumblings inside her own party, make
her position as unstable as ever.
Britain had the most to gain, of all NATO countries, and that is still true. We don't know what they might do.
This time they might even receive greater support from France this time around – since Macron is facing a revolution at home and
would kill (possibly literally) for a nice international distraction.
In the US, generally speaking, it seems that the Trump admin – or at least whichever interested parties currently have control
of the wheels of government – have called time on war in Syria. Instead, they've moved on to projects in Venezuela and North Korea,
and even war with Iran.
That's not to say Syria is safe, far from it. They are always just one carefully place false-flag away from all-out war. Last
year, Mattis (or whoever) decided war with Syria was not an option – that it was too risky or complicated. That might not happen
next time.
Clearly, the US hasn't totally seen sense in terms of stoking conflict with Russia – as seen by the decision to pull out of the
INF Treaty late last year. And further demonstrated by their attempts to overthrow Russia's ally Nicolas Maduro. Another ripe candidate
for a false flag.
The failure of the Douma false flag to cause the war it was meant to cause, and the vast collection of evidence that suggests
it was a false flag, should be spread far and wide. Not just because it's a truth which vindicates the smeared minority in the alternate
media.
But because recognising what they were trying to do last time , is the best defense when they try it again next time .
As to their "cleverness", there was a time when UK politicians were known for their
slippery qualities and subtlety, but those days are long gone. What we have now is
barefaced lies, relying purely on repetition and monolithic corporate media ownership. They
are not winning arguments because they are clever, I have never seen such transparently
obvious bullshit before.
'Clever is as clever does' – once said with a snort – is a compliment too far
for the deeply corrupted, vulgar, mediocre nobodies who comprise the self-styled 'elites'. In
this group 'cleverness' simply means the lies they are paid to say repeated loudly and often.
And because they have the reins on power, the non-compliant are punished by thugs.
I hope that might be interesting to Tulsi supporters.
In this interesting speech "Fascism in the Age of Trump" Chris Hedges predicts 20 years to the US empire. So somewhere
around 2040 or when the age of "cheap oil" approximately ends and/or come under considerable stress.
He does not understands neoliberal social system well and does not use the term "neoliberarism" in his speak (which is
detrimental to its value) , but he manages to provide a set of interesting arguments, although the speech is full of exaggerations
and inconsistencies.
It also can explains the current Trump stance toward China as "Hail Mary" attempt top preserve the global hegemony by
suppressing China even at considerable cost for the USA population.
I really feel for Chris Hedges on a personal level. Unlike say Blyth, or Chomsky, whom
seem to revel in being intellectual bad boys, Hedges seems to be at heart a very conservative
man in the true sense of the word, driven to the extremes by the rabid greed and sociopathic
nature of mainstream politics. The corruption of it seems to visibly torture him. It takes a
special kind of courage to take an unpopular stand like he does.
President Eisenhower stated that the largest threat to our Democracy was/is the Military
Industrial Complex. He quickly terminated the Korean War that he inherited then kept us out
of foreign conflict. He believed in a strong Middle Class and promoted our economy with a
massive highway system. He kept the highest progressive tax rate at 90% discouraging CEO's
from massively overpaying themselves.
Neoliberal corruption in full display. As we see forms of nepotism evolve with time...
Notable quotes:
"... Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem. And just like his Ukraine scandal , it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries. ..."
"... Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now Secret Empires discovered that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5 billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the New York Post . ..."
"... Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned entities. ..."
"... Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner ..."
"... It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers . ..."
"... It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs. ..."
"... The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont. ..."
"... "We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive, who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous." ..."
"... Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal. ..."
"... The vice president was bringing with him highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy. ..."
"... The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any background or experience in the energy sector. - New York Post ..."
"... Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world. ..."
Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem.
And just like his
Ukraine scandal
, it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries.
Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the
New York Post .
" If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son -- who has scant experience in private
equity -- clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that's because it is " -
Peter Schweizer
Perhaps this is why Joe Biden - now on the 2020 campaign trail - said last week that China wasn't a threat.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took a shot at Biden's comment during a speech at the Claremont Institute's 40th anniversary gala,
saying "Look how both parties now are on guard against the threat that China presents to America -- maybe except Joe Biden."
Back to Hunter...
Schweizer connects the dots, writing that "without the aid of subpoena power, here's what we know :"
Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned
entities.
The primary operation was Rosemont Seneca Partners - an investment firm founded in 2009 and controlled by Hunter Biden, John
Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz, and Heniz's longtime associate Devon Archer. The trio began making deals "through a series of overlapping
entities" under Rosemont.
In less than a year, Hunter Biden and Archer met with top Chinese officials in China , and partnered with the Thornton Group
- a Massachusetts-based consultancy headed by James Bulger - son of famed mob hitman James "Whitey" Bulger.
According to the Thornton Group's Chinese-language website, Chinese executives "extended their warm welcome" to the "Thornton
Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden."
Officially, the China meets were to "explore the possibility of commercial cooperation and opportunity," however details of
the meeting were not published to the English-language version of the website.
"The timing of this meeting was also notable. It occurred just hours before Hunter Biden's father, the vice president, met
with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington as part of the Nuclear Security Summit ," according to Schweizer.
Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two
to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial
behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of
investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner .
It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the
son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers .
Chris Heinz claims neither he nor Rosemont Seneca Partners, the firm he had part ownership of, had any role in the deal with
Bohai Harvest. Nonetheless, Biden, Archer and the Rosemont name became increasingly involved with China.
Archer became the vice chairman of Bohai Harvest, helping oversee some of the fund's investments. -
New York Post
National Security implications
As Schweizer also notes, BHR became an "anchor investor" in the IPO of China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN) in December 2014.
The state-owned energy company is involved with the construction of nuclear reactors.
In April 2016, CGN was charged by the US Justice Department with stealing nuclear secrets from the United States , which prosecutors
warned could cause "significant damage to our national security." CNG was interested in sensitive, American-made nuclear components
that resembled those used on US nuclear submarines, according to experts.
More China dealings
It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government
for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such
as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs.
Also in December 2014, a Chinese state-backed conglomerate called Gemini Investments Limited was negotiating and sealing deals
with Hunter Biden's Rosemont on several fronts. That month, it made a $34 million investment into a fund managed by Rosemont.
The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was
buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager
to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont.
"Rosemont, with its comprehensive real-estate platform and superior performance history, was precisely the investment opportunity
Gemini Investments was looking for in order to invest in the US real estate market," said Li Ming, chairman of Sino-Ocean Land Holdings
Limited and Gemini Investments. "We look forward to a strong and successful partnership."
That partnership planned to use Chinese money to scoop up US properties.
"We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive,
who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous."
Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation
of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee
of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal.
Tying it back to Ukraine
While we have previously reported on the Bidens' adventures in Ukraine, Schweizer connects the dots rather well here ...
Consider the facts. On April 16, 2014, White House records show that Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's business partner in the Rosemont
Seneca deals, made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. Five days later, on April 21, Joe
Biden landed in Kiev for a series of high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials . The vice president was bringing with him
highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry
and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping
more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy.
The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas
company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any
background or experience in the energy sector. -
New York Post
Hunter was paid as much as $50,000 per month while Burisma was under investigation by officials in both Ukraine and elsewhere.
Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired
his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma
Holdings.
Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting
the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
Joe Biden says that he had no idea Hunter was on the board of Burisma (for two years after he joined), and that the two never
spoke about the Burisma investigation. The former VP claims that Shokin's removal was required due to his mishandling of several
cases in Ukraine.
As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very
potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world.
Biden is another scumbag Democrat Lawyer who's the original 'pay for play' politician...A 40+ year history in Political Office
with Zero accomplishments except enriching himself and his family...A complete fraud and hypocrite liar.....Lawyers should have
never been allowed to run for Office at any level.....Look at all the corruption that has been and is being exposed at the different
bureaucracies...Virtually all the corruption has been willfully committed by Lawyers....Pathetic....
Interesting.... I put: "The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow
an elected President because he stands in " the way of "profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected
councils and retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
But came out:The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow an elected
President because he stands in the profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected councils and
retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
To make it sound as if it is Trump profiting.... By no means is that true... Its the " long term" Washington officals that
have been profiting. Not a possible 8 year President.
My phone also wont let me thumbs up people i would like to but only a few and also replying is " verboten".
These algorhythms and blocks and censorship is an abuse of constitutional rights which is bad enough, but even worse is that
these rights got monopolized by various corporations who bought stock in facebook/ googles options that was stolen from Leader
technologies source code ( which Mark zukerberg couldnt write on a good day... He is a front guy and again we have British privy
council involed with Clegg head of facebook now voice for Mark... Because Mark is a cut out).
This whole social media internet thing has been hijacked and weaponized by Washingtons same people as Dossier scandel... James
Chandeler attorney and backstaber of Leader technology.
See leader technology vs facebook..... But i digress.
Michael T. McKibben's career spans two phases: international Christian music ministry, and technology innovation. In 2006,
he was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for what is now called "social networking."
Biden & Kerry aren't the only ones with a China problem. "Secret Empires" also listed Mitch McConnell having a huge China problem
through his wife's shipping company. I bet he doesn't run for re-election. Winning.
they all own one another - that's the essence of the problem in politics. and why they have tried so hard to get that outsider,
trump, out of the country club.
China funded Bill Clinton's election campaigns through James Riady, an Indonesian Chinese man involved in hard drug smuggling
and arms trafficking. The money was laundered through Little Rock banks and corporations. (See Victor Thorn's Hillary and Bill
, all three volumes.)
"Come on man! This is a joke! He's my son and he's a great buddy. I mean yeah he was drummed out of the Naval Reserve because
of his cocaine habit, but come on man, you know, everybody does it! Just ask my good friend Barack, he's a clean, good looking
darkie whose done his share of blow. And yeah Hunter fucked his dead brother's widow, but come on man! Have you seen her ****
and ***. I might have made a move on her myself, but hey man I'm married."
Joe Biden, From the endless Fear and Mongering Presidential campaign of 2020.
IRS/SEC/FBI are not investigatory agencies. They are barrier agencies. They protect the anointed, letting them do as they wish,
and stomp on anyone else who tries to get in on the gravy train.
Sociopaths are the reason all governments, regardless of the particular 'ism', eventually fail...
Looking at human history, fascism is the most common form of government for humans. At least it is the most honest - that the
sociopaths are ******* everyone else.... These days we try to hide it by lofty idealism that is incompatible with a predator/prey
real world.....
Representative democracy, socialism and communism all fail and all fail for the same reason - sociopaths...
We should be honest with ourselves that there is a small, but statistically significant percentage of the human population
that are sociopaths (and more are being born every generation). We can call them predators and we are the prey...any concentration
of power attracts sociopaths regardless of the fancy label we put on the political system. Within a short time the system is inundated
with sociopaths who invariably game the system to death for their own individual benefit....
Don't like the reality in which you find yourself? Stop voting for sociopaths, stop giving them power...
What political party or system even acknowledge the sociopath problem? That's right, none...so don't expect anything to change
after the reset...the pleubs will chose a new sociopath for their leader, who will **** them, and things will go on as they always
have...
Only way to combat this is to decentralize power as much as possible...this doesn't solve the sociopath problem, but it does
spread them out and keeps them from ganging up together to **** over the peasants...but I won't hold my breath....
Is this a good time to take a look at 1) Front Men 2) Front Companies 3) Shell Companies 4) Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV/SPE)
5) Offshore Accounts, Offshore Donations, Offshore Campaign or PAC or Party Contributions, Paradise Papers, Panama Papers 6) USA
as Tax Haven for foreign accounts 7) USA as an Empire 8) The Rise Of The Fourth Reich notes in book by Jim Marrs
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
Looks like pendulum start swinging against privatization...
Notable quotes:
"... As corporate profits are the private sector's yardstick of success, privatized monopolies are likely to abuse their market power to maximize rents for themselves. Thus, privatization tends to burden the public, e.g., if charges are raised. ..."
"... In most cases, privatization has not closed the governments' fiscal deficits, and may even worsen budgetary problems. Privatization may worsen the fiscal situation due to loss of revenue from privatized SOEs, or tax evasion by the new privatized entity. ..."
"... In most cases, profitable SOEs were privatized as prospective private owners are driven to maximize profits. Fiscal deficits have often been exacerbated as new private owners use creative accounting to avoid tax, secure tax credits and subsidies, and maximize retained earnings. ..."
"... As a rule of thumb, I'd say that any privatisations that require the introduction of convoluted pseudo-market structures or vast new regulatory bureaucracies or which derive most of their ongoing income from the public sector are likely to be contrary to the long-term public interest. In the UK, unfortunately, all these ships sailed a long time ago ..."
"... Chicago is the proving grounds for thirty or so years of the Democrats' surrender to neoliberalism and austerity politics. Let us not forget, brethren and sistren, that Rahm is the Spawn of Bill + Hill as well as dear friend and advisor of Obama. So there is the work of Daley to undo and the work of the Clintonians to undo. It will take more than one term for Lightfoot. ..."
"... Privatization, at any cost, is no longer a choice. We have abused the pension system and now the public must pay for private companies to provide the most basic services. ..."
"... I keep thinking that perhaps an Act could or should be introduced here in UK (same for the States, i suppose), which should ensure that all politicians that enable any type of privatisation of public resources or PFI arrangement (yes that old chesnut), should be made personally responsible for the results therof. ..."
"... And any losses to the public accidentally or "accidentally" occasioned by such commandeering over public resources, to be treated like deliberate misappropriation by the said public officials. With the financial and custodial penalties as may be appropriate. ..."
"... lots of private services that are suspiciously similar to public utilities in terms of natural monopoly, such as cable TV, internet and even railroads. Maybe these should be nationalized and treated more like public services. It can work when they're adequately funded and oversight accountability has teeth; major airports are a good example. ..."
"... Plus the state giveaways includes tens of millions of dollars each year in corporate tax credits in the name of job creation. A report by the nonprofit " Good Jobs First " revealed that over 300 Illinois companies are keeping the state taxes paid by their employees. EDGE- the Economic Development in a Growing Economy is a corporate freebie tax credit, which is partly from the state personal income taxes paid by workers. That's right, the biggest welfare queens are the corporations collecting and keep their employees state income tax payments. ..."
"... Can it get worse? According to the Chicago Trib , "The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), for example, with billions of untaxed contracts worth well over a quadrillion dollars, and whose profit margin in recent years is higher than any of the top 100 companies in the nation, had the hubris to demand an $85 million per year tax break. They got it." The money is there to secure the pensions and budget but has been diverted to the corporate welfare queens for honoring us mere serfs with their presence in the humble fiefdom of Illinois. ..."
"... Michael Hudson, to his immense credit, explains the pernicious effects of privatization of common goods repeatedly throughout his work, and demonstrates that it has been with us at least as long as the ancient practice of land alienation and rural usury. ..."
Posted on April 7,
2019 by Jerri-Lynn Scofield Jerri-Lynn
here. Another succinct post by Jomo Kwame Sundaram that makes clear the "benefits" of
privatization are not evenly distributed, and in fact, typically, "many are even worse off"
when the government chooses to transfer ownership of the family silver.
Note that SOE is the acronym for state owned enterprise.
For those interested in the topic, see also another short post by the same author from last
September, debunking other arguments to promote the privatization fairy, Revisiting
Privatization's Claims .
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development.
Originally published at Inter Press
Service
In most cases of privatization, some outcomes benefit some, which serves to legitimize the
change. Nevertheless, overall net welfare improvements are the exception, not the rule.
Never is everyone better off. Rather, some are better off, while others are not, and
typically, many are even worse off. The partial gains are typically high, or even negated by
overall costs, which may be diffuse, and less directly felt by losers.
Privatized Monopoly Powers
Since many SOEs are public monopolies, privatization has typically transformed them into
private monopolies. In turn, abuse of such market monopoly power enables more rents and
corporate profits.
As corporate profits are the private sector's yardstick of success, privatized monopolies
are likely to abuse their market power to maximize rents for themselves. Thus, privatization
tends to burden the public, e.g., if charges are raised.
In most cases, privatization has not closed the governments' fiscal deficits, and may even
worsen budgetary problems. Privatization may worsen the fiscal situation due to loss of revenue
from privatized SOEs, or tax evasion by the new privatized entity.
Options for cross-subsidization, e.g., to broaden coverage are reduced as the government is
usually left with unprofitable activities while the potentially profitable is acquired by the
private sector. Thus, governments are often forced to cut essential public services.
In most cases, profitable SOEs were privatized as prospective private owners are driven to
maximize profits. Fiscal deficits have often been exacerbated as new private owners use
creative accounting to avoid tax, secure tax credits and subsidies, and maximize retained
earnings.
Meanwhile, governments lose vital revenue sources due to privatization if SOEs are
profitable, and are often obliged to subsidize privatized monopolies to ensure the poor and
underserved still have access to the privatized utilities or services.
Privatization Burdens Many
Privatization burdens the public when charges or fees are not reduced, or when the services
provided are significantly reduced. Thus, privatization often burdens the public in different
ways, depending on how market power is exercised or abused.
Often, instead of trying to provide a public good to all, many are excluded because it is
not considered commercially viable or economic to serve them. Consequently, privatization may
worsen overall enterprise performance. 'Value for money' may go down despite ostensible
improvements used to justify higher user charges.
SOEs are widely presumed to be more likely to be inefficient. The most profitable and
potentially profitable are typically the first and most likely to be privatized. This leaves
the rest of the public sector even less profitable, and thus considered more inefficient, in
turn justifying further privatizations.
Efficiency Elusive
It is often argued that privatization is needed as the government is inherently inefficient
and does not know how to run enterprises well. Incredibly, the government is expected to
subsidize privatized SOEs, which are presumed to be more efficient, in order to fulfil its
obligations to the citizenry.
Such obligations may not involve direct payments or transfers, but rather, lucrative
concessions to the privatized SOE. Thus, they may well make far more from these additional
concessions than the actual cost of fulfilling government obligations.
Thus, privatization of profitable enterprises or segments not only perpetuates exclusion of
the deserving, but also worsens overall public sector performance now encumbered with remaining
unprofitable obligations.
One consequence is poorer public sector performance, contributing to what appears to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy. To make matters worse, the public sector is then stuck with financing
the unprofitable, thus seemingly supporting to the privatization prophecy.
Benefits Accrue to Relatively Few
Privatization typically enriches the politically connected few who secure lucrative rents by
sacrificing the national or public interest for private profit, even when privatization may not
seem to benefit them.
Privatization in many developing and transition economies has primarily enriched these few
as the public interest is sacrificed to such powerful private business interests. This has, in
turn, exacerbated corruption, patronage and other related problems.
For example, following Russian voucher privatization and other Western recommended reforms,
for which there was a limited domestic constituency then, within three years (1992-1994), the
Russian economy had collapsed by half, and adult male life expectancy fell by six years. It was
the greatest such recorded catastrophe in the last six millennia of recorded human history.
Soon, a couple of dozen young Russian oligarchs had taken over the commanding heights of the
Russian economy; many then monetized their gains and invested abroad, migrating to follow their
new wealth. Much of this was celebrated by the Western media as economic progress.
As a rule of thumb, I'd say that any privatisations that require the introduction of
convoluted pseudo-market structures or vast new regulatory bureaucracies or which derive most
of their ongoing income from the public sector are likely to be contrary to the long-term
public interest. In the UK, unfortunately, all these ships sailed a long time ago
After the recent Chicago municipal elections, I wrote up some notes on the reasons for the
discontent. This article by Sundaram explains exactly how these schemes work. Further, you
can apply his criteria of subsidies for the rich, skimming, and disinheriting the middle
class and poor to all of the following instances in Chicago.
If I may–some for instances of how Sundaram's observations turn up in U.S.
cities:
Chicago is the proving grounds for thirty or so years of the Democrats' surrender to
neoliberalism and austerity politics. Let us not forget, brethren and sistren, that Rahm is
the Spawn of Bill + Hill as well as dear friend and advisor of Obama. So there is the work of
Daley to undo and the work of the Clintonians to undo. It will take more than one term for
Lightfoot.
Consider:
–Parking meters and enforcement have been privatized, starving the city of funds and,
more importantly, of its police power.
–Taxes have been privatized in TIFs, where money goes and is never heard from
again.
–There have been attempts to privatize the park system in the form of the Lucas museum
and the current Obama Theme Park imbroglio, involving some fifty acres of park land.
–The school system has been looted and privatized. The Democrats are big fans of
charter schools (right, "Beto"), seeing them as ways to skim money off the middle class and
the poor.
–Fare collection on public transit has been privatized using a system so deliberately
rudimentary and so deliberately corrupt that it cannot tell you at point of service how much
you have paid as fare.
–Boeing was enticed to Chicago with tax breaks. Yes, that Boeing, the one that now
deliberately puts bad software in your airplane.
–Property tax assessment has been an opaque system and source of skimming for
lawyers.
–Zoning: Eddie Burke, pond scum, is just the top layer of pollution.
–And as we have made our descent, all of these economic dogmata have been enforced by
petty harassment of the citizenry (endless tickets) and an ever-brutal police force.
And yet: The current Republican Party also supports all of these policies, so let's not
pretend that a bunch of Mitch McConnell lookalikes are headed to Chicago to reform it.
Providing professional services i.e. architecture, engineering, etc. for a public entity,
local or federal, does not yield unreasonable profits. Typically, the public agencies have
their own staff to monitor and cost control a project. The professional services provided to
private developers yields far more profit- oftentimes twice the profits associated with
public agency work. Most professional services companies will transition their work to the
public agencies during a recession.
At any rate, especially in Illinois, privatizing the work to avoid pension liabilities is
no longer a choice. Michael Madigan pension promises will require the public to maintain a
public service budget with no staff to fill potholes. Essentially, these are the no work jobs
made popular by the Soprano crew twenty years ago.
Discussion of the downside of the privatization of public services is merely an
oscillation from discussing the weather, the Bears or any other kitchen table discussion
– nothing more than pleasant small talk to pass the time.
Privatization, at any cost, is no longer a choice. We have abused the pension system and
now the public must pay for private companies to provide the most basic services.
The question is, what can one do to help arrest this wholesale theft of public resources
and their expropriation into the hands of well connected. " Public", as in, it is the working
public over the last 100 or 200 years that created (or paid for), the electricity grid, or
public schools, or entire armed or police forces
I keep thinking that perhaps an Act could or should be introduced here in UK (same for the
States, i suppose), which should ensure that all politicians that enable any type of
privatisation of public resources or PFI arrangement (yes that old chesnut), should be made
personally responsible for the results therof.
And any losses to the public accidentally or "accidentally" occasioned by such
commandeering over public resources, to be treated like deliberate misappropriation by the
said public officials. With the financial and custodial penalties as may be appropriate.
Anybody out there with similar thoughts or should i really try harder and give up on
drugs?
I vociferously disagree with the assertion that the wrecking of pension funding in the
past is the reason we are forced to leave privatization schemes in place today.
In a similar vein, the are lots of private services that are suspiciously similar to
public utilities in terms of natural monopoly, such as cable TV, internet and even railroads.
Maybe these should be nationalized and treated more like public services. It can work when
they're adequately funded and oversight accountability has teeth; major airports are a good
example.
Let's not forget the privatization of the
Chicago Skyway , not once but twice.
Plus the state giveaways includes tens of millions of dollars each year in corporate tax
credits in the name of job creation. A report by the nonprofit " Good Jobs
First " revealed that over 300 Illinois companies are keeping the state taxes paid by
their employees. EDGE- the Economic Development in a Growing Economy is a corporate freebie
tax credit, which is partly from the state personal income taxes paid by workers. That's
right, the biggest welfare queens are the corporations collecting and keep their employees
state income tax payments.
Can it get worse? According to the
Chicago Trib , "The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), for example, with billions of
untaxed contracts worth well over a quadrillion dollars, and whose profit margin in recent
years is higher than any of the top 100 companies in the nation, had the hubris to demand an
$85 million per year tax break. They got it." The money is there to secure the pensions and
budget but has been diverted to the corporate welfare queens for honoring us mere serfs with
their presence in the humble fiefdom of Illinois.
Paging Mike Madigan- The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy lists Illinois as one
of the "Terrible Ten" most tax-regressive states, imposing a much higher rate on poor
residents for sales and excise taxes, property taxes and income taxes. Al Capone would be
proud of him.
Michael Hudson, to his immense credit, explains the pernicious effects of privatization of
common goods repeatedly throughout his work, and demonstrates that it has been with us at
least as long as the ancient practice of land alienation and rural usury.
Natural monopolies ought to be nationalised, full stop.
I support public ownership of natural monopolies, however it would be helpful if these
pieces contained data, case studies or footnoted entries providing some empirical evidence of
the author's thesis.
This article comes at a time when the clarion call for privatizing Eskom, SA's electricity
utility, is hitting deafening levels. To the private sector, efficiency = maximizing profits
by making the "bloated" enterprise lean (aka cutting the workforce) and quite literally mean
(aka cutting services to "unprofitable" segments of the market, iow, the poor and
vulnerable). When profits soar because the holy grail of efficiency is achieved, the
mainstream business press brings out the champagne and toasts this "success" as proof that
the previously "moribund" (they always exaggerate the state of things) monopolistic monolith
has been given a new lease on life by privatizing it and the template is set for rescuing
other "ailing" SOEs.
The drawbacks are never laid out as cleary as they are in this article and the plight of
those worst affected, whether laid-off workers or those whose services have been cut, never
makes it into the headlines.
And then there is prison privatization where the burden of operation and maintaining the
institution should clearly be on the public so as to be constant reminder of the burden,
among others reasons. The motivations by private prison operators to reduce services and
costs out of site of the pesky prying eyes of the public are manifold.
Privatization is a great way to avoid having user fees wasted by providing services, and
instead put to better use funding the re-election campaigns of politicians supporting
privatization. Plus, it provides much-needed consulting fees for former politicians as well
as job-creating 7-figure salaries for the CEOs,
(/snark, if you couldn't tell)
On a side note, the Dilbert comic strip is written about private industry ,
There was a rudimentary plan
put forward last June that recommended some pretty substantial privatizations of U.S.
government assets and services which include:
-Privatizing the US Post Office ( through an Initial Public Offering or outright sale to a
private entity ).
-Sell off U.S. government owned electricity transmission lines ( U.S. government owns 14% of
this nations power transmission lines through TVA, Southwestern Power Administration, Western
Area Power Administration, and Bonneville Power Administration ).
-Spin-off the Federal Aviation Administrations air traffic control operations into a private
nonprofit entity.
-Spin-off the Department of Transportations operations of the Saint Lawrence Seaways Locks
and Channels into a private non-profit entity.
-End the federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then regulate a new system of
private guarantors for their MBS securities.
At heart, the problem with privatization is that marketing to a government-employed
purchaser or "purchase influencer" is ridiculously cheap, due to their poor accountability
strictures.
This is abetted by the Katamari Damacy process (self-accretionary tendency) of money and
power.
In Oz the electricity grids were privatized as they would be cheaper that way – or
so people were told. Instead, the cost of electricity has risen sharply over the years to the
point that it is effecting elections on both the State and Federal level as the price hikes
are so controversial. A problem is that those companies have to pay back the loans used to
buy the public electricity grids and as well, the senior management award themselves sky-high
wages because they are totally worth it. These are factors that were never present when it
was publicly owned. And just to put the boot in, those very same companies have been
'gold-plating' the electricity grid for their gain-
Meanwhile, whatever money the governments made selling their electricity companies has
been long spent on white elephants or buying themselves re-elections by giving out goodies to
voters.
buying themselves re-elections by giving out goodies to voters.
I don't reside in the states, so I don't see much of the detail of daily life. What are
these "goodies" of which you speak? In what I am able to read on the internet, people aren't
being given goodies any more. At least the old-time politicians handed out jobs, and turkeys
at Christmas. The current crop do hand out jobs to their kids and immediate family, but not
so much to anyone else.
The county "poorhouse" in Lebanon County, PA over the years evolved into a bare-bones but
very well run nursing home with caring, long-term staff. The Republican county commissioners,
however, year after year, avoided raising taxes by underfunding the retirement plan for the
employees. Then, "suddenly" there was a crisis because the underfunding had become legally
untenable.
The solution was to sell the operation to a for-profit operator to fund the pansion plan
shortfall at the minimal level required legally. In the next contract, the new owner cut
health care and other benefits. The wages had always been minimal and he was free of the old
pension plan requirements.
The employees went on strike for many months, the owner brought in replacements from
companies that specialize in that service, until the employees had to cave in.
I had been counting on that facility when my sister was diagnosed with Alzheimers. I have
family that is able to step in so she is provided for. Many others in the county are not so
fortunate. Here are some staff comments: https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Cedar-Haven-Healthcare-Center/reviews?fcountry=ALL
" instead of trying to provide a public good to all, many [ordinary working people] are
excluded because it is not considered commercially viable or economic to serve them."
There are also social and class dimensions to the exclusion. Private Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) in the USA have made the "not commercially viable or economic to serve them"
argument for decades when pressed about their refusal to wire the entire country. Their
"business model" leaves millions without reliable broadband service in a variety of settings,
from rural areas and small towns to inner cities and low income suburbs. In many cases,
citizens in those areas have no access to broadband at all.
When small towns and counties in the US have taken the initiative to wire their
localities, the ISPs have bribed state legislatures to pass laws prohibiting public broadband
throughout the rest of the state. Talk about subversion of democracy! Insult to injury: the
ISPs who wailed about "unfair competition" to state legislators then refuse to wire areas
throughout the rest of the state.
Lack of universal and affordable broadband has two major effects:
➤ Local governments are shut out of economic opportunities because they lack
connectivity. They are unable to shepherd business startups and existing businesses that need
broadband to thrive. People move away. Businesses relocate or downsize. Local economies are
left with erroding tax bases and boarded up downtowns.
➤ Children and young people in "broadband deserts" cannot tap into the many sources
of learning that exist on the web. In particular, they don't have the opportunity to learn
anything about frontend or backend web development applications such as, html, php, Ruby on
Rails, Photoshop or Indesign.
That is one reason the US tech industry lacks workers from different backgrounds. Most
tech workers grew up in areas the ISPs considered "commercially viable". In addition, many
tech workers are self taught to some degree, even those with computer science degrees. It is
difficult to be self taught if you lack access to the most basic resources and tools.
Note an interesting statement of a pro-Isreally lobbyist: "Jewish exceptionalism and the
exceptionalist nature of Jewish civilization require an unconditional space for the continued
evolution of their civilization. What's good for Jewish civilization is good for humanity at
large. Jewish civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected." ~ by
Jason D. Hill, professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago. If this not a descript on
neofascist mentality I do not know what is. just replace Jewish with German.
You will get "German exceptionalism and the exceptionalist nature of German civilization
require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their civilization. What's good for
German civilization is good for humanity at large. German civilization is an international
treasure trove that must be protected."
Notable quotes:
"... In his essay, Hill insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should faithfully keep his campaign promise to incorporate West Bank settlements. In fact, according to Hill, the Israeli leader has a "moral right to annex all of the West Bank for a plethora of reasons." ..."
"... First, the Israelis were too "altruistic" in dealing with the Palestinians whom they conquered in 1967. It would been better if the Israelis had regarded the Palestinians as "enemies of the state ..."
"... Second, he implies that Palestinian authority doesn't deserve any better ..."
"... "Jewish exceptionalism and the exceptionalist nature of Jewish civilization require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their civilization. What's good for Jewish civilization is good for humanity at large. Jewish civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected." ..."
"... Third, Israel has "every moral right to wage a ruthless and unrelenting war against Hamas and to re-settle the land if it ever so desires." On top of that, the United States is morally obligated to pay "political and financial reparations" to Israel, supplying it with "more advanced military capabilities" so that it can maintain its "unrivaled military status in the Middle East." ..."
"... Finally, Hill solemnly arrives at his last point. The Palestinians have no moral authority "because they have never explicitly held a philosophy that can support freedom, the basic principles of individual rights, and a free market economy." ..."
"... Hill's extravagant description of "Jewish civilization" in language that recalls the extreme, belligerent nationalists of an earlier age ..."
"... Finally, I'm wondering whether any government that Hill judges to be "better" than another one has a moral right to overthrow the offending regime and then expel its inhabitants. Or is this a one-time deal only for Israelis? By the way, "reparations" are the things that the Germans paid Nazi victims, not the support a nation gives to a weaker ally. Perhaps Hill is telling us more about what should be the servile U.S. relationship to Israel than he intends. ..."
"... This commentary has made me think of an unpleasant experience in my own life. In 1987 I lost the chance for a graduate professorship at a large university in Washington, D.C. after several noted neoconservatives called my prospective employer and insisted passionately that "I was not quite reliable on Israel." If Professor Hill has established the standard of who is "reliable on Israel," then perhaps my accusers were correct. ..."
published
an opinion piece by Jason D. Hill, professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago.
As I read this commentary, I had to wonder whether it was some kind of spoof. It seems to have
been written to poke fun at over-the-top Zionists; and this may indeed be the case -- or so one
can hope.
In his essay, Hill insisted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should
faithfully keep his campaign
promise to incorporate West Bank settlements. In fact, according to Hill, the Israeli
leader has a "moral right to annex all of the West Bank for a plethora of reasons."
This "plethora of reasons" comes down basically to four.
First, the Israelis were too "altruistic" in dealing with the Palestinians whom they
conquered in 1967. It would been better if the Israelis had regarded the Palestinians as
"enemies of the state : supporters of the Fatah (Palestinian Liberation Organization)
Charter, which basically calls for the end of Jewry in the region." Jewish conquerors should
have immediately annexed the land and made "the people there [who should have been expelled]
the responsibility of their original homeland: Jordan."
Second, he implies that Palestinian authority doesn't deserve any better , in part
because it fails to recognize the inherent inferiority of their people in relation to the
Jewish masters of the West Bank: "Jewish exceptionalism and the exceptionalist nature of
Jewish civilization require an unconditional space for the continued evolution of their
civilization. What's good for Jewish civilization is good for humanity at large. Jewish
civilization is an international treasure trove that must be protected."
Third, Israel has "every moral right to wage a ruthless and unrelenting war against Hamas
and to re-settle the land if it ever so desires." On top of that, the United States is morally
obligated to pay "political and financial reparations" to Israel, supplying it with "more
advanced military capabilities" so that it can maintain its "unrivaled military status in the
Middle East."
Finally, Hill solemnly arrives at his last point. The Palestinians have no moral
authority "because they have never explicitly held a philosophy that can support freedom, the
basic principles of individual rights, and a free market economy." Additionally, they vote
for terrorist organizations like Hamas to represent them. In short, they are a "security threat
to Israel because a core feature of their identity is a commitment to destroying Israel as a
Jewish state." It is therefore immoral to accept "anti-Semitics devoted to the destruction of
Israel into the domain of Jewish civilization."
Hill does make two serious points: one, that Israelis face an immense security problem and
two, that the Palestinians on the West Bank (and let's not forget Gaza) are angry because of
both the cramped conditions and military control/occupation they've had to endure for decades.
Right and wrong can be found on both sides of this protracted conflict: Palestinians were
defeated and expelled from what is now Israel, while Israelis are being threatened by violence
from the descendants of those whom they defeated and their terrorist allies.
But Hill's extravagant description of "Jewish civilization" in language that recalls the
extreme, belligerent nationalists of an earlier age does nothing to help his cause, nor for
that matter, the credibility of The Federalist. And why exactly should I suppose that every
Palestinian is a terrorist or theocratic fanatic? Understandably, desperate people vote for
extremist parties. I too wish that West Bank Palestinians were more reasonable and more
compromising but I can understand their frustration as an occupied population.
Finally, I'm wondering whether any government that Hill judges to be "better" than another
one has a moral right to overthrow the offending regime and then expel its inhabitants. Or is
this a one-time deal only for Israelis? By the way, "reparations" are the things that the
Germans paid Nazi victims, not the support a nation gives to a weaker ally. Perhaps Hill is
telling us more about what should be the servile U.S. relationship to Israel than he
intends.
But the most childish piece of advice Hill offers, which the Israelis fortunately never
took, is sending West Bank Palestinians to neighboring Jordan. Is Hill aware that Jordan has
over two million
Palestinians , some of whom have been there since 1948, and has taken in a total of 657,628
Syrian refugees as of
early 2018 ? King Abdullah of Jordan has maintained generally friendly relations with both
the United States and Israel, and the last thing he needs is the turmoil and political unrest
that would result from sticking more irate Palestinians, who had been kicked out of their
homes, into his country.
This commentary has made me think of an unpleasant experience in my own life. In 1987 I lost
the chance for a graduate professorship at a large university in Washington, D.C. after several
noted neoconservatives called my prospective employer and insisted passionately that "I was not
quite reliable on Israel." If Professor Hill has established the standard of who is "reliable
on Israel," then perhaps my accusers were correct.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown
College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the
author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents
.
That such pieces as Bugajski's article and the RAND Corporation report have appeared
about the same time is in itself a suggestion that the US Deep State truly exists on another
plane of unreality. I wouldn't be surprised if a third hit-piece advocating regime change in
Russia were to come out soon, either in the US or in the UK, but if that happens then we'll
know we're really on a path to self-destruction.
Posted by: Jen | Apr 27, 2019 5:38:18 PM | 19
It's easy to be mesmerised into focusing on Fink Tank drivel instead of the stuff
happening outside the stale atmosphere of their unventilated tanks. The French peasants seem
to have woken up to the fact that the Macron NeoLib govt has betrayed them and is only
pretending to listen. It's only a matter of time until the Gillet Jaunes remember the words
of jocular Neoliberal poster-boy Grover Norquist about "government small enough to drown in
the bathtub."
Of course, when funny-man Grover said that he meant govt too small to responsibly oversee
and administer all of its obligations to The People, thereby necessitating the 'outsourcing'
of the juiciest govt obligations to Private Profiteers. Unfortunately, when a govt becomes
too small and pompous to listen and respond to the legitimate concerns of The People, it runs
the risk of having its size compared with the size of the Disenchanted demographic and,
eventually, drowned. Hopefully metaphorically, although History says that when the French
neglect reform for too long, metaphorical solutions tend to be neglected too.
And France is just the tip of the iceberg. Again.
"... The #resistence seems to fulfill people who have never accepted any religions whole-heartedly; there is something in the human psyche which demands an intuitive evidence-free, faith-based acceptance of beliefs which go beyond facts and evidence. This is a powerful dream world where their illusions are more powerful than reality. ..."
"... Their comments have moved away from ad hominem "You are a Putin stooge!" arguments to appeals to Authority fallacies: "All our Intelligence Agencies Know that Assange worked with Russians to embarrass Hillary and cost her the Election". Religiosity is largely Authority-driven, and avoids the angst of critical thinking and putting facts together that (thanks to our Intelligence Agencies!) don't fit together. ..."
"People take this repetition as a substitute for proof due to a glitch in human psychology
known as the illusory truth effect, a phenomenon which causes our brains to tend to interpret
things we've heard before as known truths." I think it is a deeper phenomenon than repetition
of lies (which have been legal since 2014 with the 'modernization' of Smith-Mundt, our
anti-propaganda law).
The #resistence seems to fulfill people who have never accepted any religions
whole-heartedly; there is something in the human psyche which demands an intuitive
evidence-free, faith-based acceptance of beliefs which go beyond facts and evidence. This is
a powerful dream world where their illusions are more powerful than reality.
There is an inability to accept the fact that people in DC and NYC and Boston and San
Francisco and other Financial/ MIC-driven areas were doing well relative to the bulk of
Americans and life was wonderful until the 2016 Election. For these people "America Has Never
Stopped Being Great!" (Similar to the "I've got mine, Jack! " attitude of Great Britain, as
their labor unions lost unity with rest of the working class.)
Their comments have moved away from ad hominem "You are a Putin stooge!" arguments to appeals
to Authority fallacies: "All our Intelligence Agencies Know that Assange worked with Russians
to embarrass Hillary and cost her the Election". Religiosity is largely Authority-driven, and
avoids the angst of critical thinking and putting facts together that (thanks to our
Intelligence Agencies!) don't fit together.
This is a very
difficult article for me to write.
As a young child I was a member of the Cub Scouts, and
I still have very fond memories from those days.
Throughout my life I always had a
tremendous amount of respect for the Boy Scouts, and so it greatly saddened me to learn about the
abuse that has been running rampant in that organization. Of course
this is just a very
small part of a much larger trend that is plaguing our society
, but if this kind of abuse
is pervasive even among the Boy Scouts,
what organization is truly safe for America's
kids?
Have we gotten to the point as a society where our children are literally not safe
anywhere?
According to
ABC
News
, court documents that were just released indicate that 12,254 victims were abused by 7,819
Boy Scout troop leaders over the years
An expert who has been working with the Boy Scouts revealed that there may have been as many
as 7,819 allegedly sexually abusive troop leaders and volunteers in the storied organization,
according to newly released court documents.
More than 7,800 individuals allegedly abused 12,254 victims, according to the court
testimony.
This is what can happen when a society has absolutely no moral foundation whatsoever.
These days, many Americans seem to believe that our country will be turned in the right direction
if we can just get the correct political leaders into place, but that is not true at all.
No political solution is going to fix this kind of evil.
Our core problems are
moral and spiritual in nature, and most people don't seem to understand that.
A lawyer named Jeff Anderson is searching for even more Boy Scout victims, and he says that his
firm has already identified
130
perpetrators in New York and 50 in New Jersey
According to
ABC
News
, court documents that were just released indicate that 12,254 victims were abused by 7,819
Boy Scout troop leaders over the years
An expert who has been working with the Boy Scouts revealed that there may have been as many
as 7,819 allegedly sexually abusive troop leaders and volunteers in the storied organization,
according to newly released court documents.
More than 7,800 individuals allegedly abused 12,254 victims, according to the court
testimony.
This is what can happen when a society has absolutely no moral foundation whatsoever.
These days, many Americans seem to believe that our country will be turned in the right direction
if we can just get the correct political leaders into place, but that is not true at all.
No political solution is going to fix this kind of evil.
Our core problems are
moral and spiritual in nature, and most people don't seem to understand that.
"Nothing is more important than the
safety and protection of children in
Scouting." The courts had to let the
fags in as Scout Masters, so who is
surprised?
Our handlers have romanticized
deviancy to the point that these
people cannot be called out. We
have been weighed in the balance
and found lacking. The good,
the bad and the ugly will be
swept away with what is coming.
Are you really stupid enough to
think that homosexual paedophiles
never got into positions of
authority in the scouts until the
scouts permitted openly gay scout
leaders?
You should be thankful
that you were an ugly kid -
that's the only way you would
have escaped their clutches, if
you're this naďve as an adult.
Paedophiles have always
been attracted to any job that
involves close unsupervised
contact with children
.
Anyone in that sort of job
should always be immediately
suspect: paedophiles are very
rare in the broad population,
but they're not rare in
professions that involve close,
unsupervised contact with kids.
52 years ago I went to Boy Scout
Camp outside of Rhinelander, WI.
On the third night a scoutmaster,
who I didn't know, woke me up around
11:30 pm to go to the Deer Field to
look at stars. Being a smart ***, I
said, "Oh, I went with the other
group and we just got back." The
next day I was on the next bus outta
there. Told 'em my brother was
coming back from Viet Nam ( which
was almost true).
So basically, no surprise. I
would've been safer and had more fun
with better stories to tell spending
the night with Harvey Weinstein.
Just like a spider builds his web around the light, the homosexual
infiltrates places where he can have private access to boys –
including the priesthood and the boy scouts.
This is similar to
the way the heterosexual gets a job as like, a lifeguard at a
beach in Miami, or joins a rock band.
I have no idea why people wouldn't simply assume that huge
numbers of homosexuals would be signing up for to be Boy Scout
Scout Masters, and why they didn't control for that – for
instance, not allowing them to join unless they were married with
kids, or had otherwise proved they were not faggots.
But then the decision to just allow open faggots – that is
just it is just unfathomable.
How did we create a society that puts political correctness and
the alleged emotions of pederasts above the safety of our
children?
Who is responsible for this?
MOST IMPORTANTLY
These faggots ARE NOT ******* PEDOPHILES!
THEY ARE HOMOSEXUALS!
"Pedophile" is a specific term that means sexual attraction to
prepubescent children. Boy Scouts are pubescent boys in their
early teens.
THIS IS NORMAL HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR.
During the Catholic Church pederasty scandal, they started
talking about "pedophiles" instead of homosexuals, as an attempt
to distinguish between "good homos" and "bad homos."
BUT ALL HOMOSEXUAL HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR YOUNG TEENAGE BOYS!
THAT IS WHAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS!
THERE IS ONLY ONE KIND OF "GOOD HOMO" AND THAT IS THE KIND THAT
IS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR AFTER HAVING BEEN THROWN OFF A ROOF!
Looks like tail wags the dog -- CIA controls the US foreign policy and in the last elections
also played active role in promoting Hillary. A the level of top brass we have
several people mentioned by Giraldi who are probably as dangerous as Allen Dulles was. Brennan
is one example.
The parade of rogues that Philip describes is really
alarming. Each with agenda that directly harms
the USA as a country promoting the interest of military-industrial complex and neocon
faction within the government...
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter. ..."
"... Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level would appear to be fully on board with that effort. ..."
"... Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was revealed in the press two weeks ago. ..."
"... Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of totally bereft of his senses. ..."
"... Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting attended by Pompeo, he told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent (one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down. ..."
"... And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration. Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been some Russian recruitment of Trump people. He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan, and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time. ..."
"... Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia. ..."
"... The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like the British MI5. The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words. ..."
"... As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants of the Deep State. ..."
"... The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary to its purposes. ..."
"... The CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service, long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has done. ..."
"... The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. ..."
"... While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies, it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos, the bankster mafiosi. ..."
"... I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are – Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments. The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too well the truth about the Clintons and Obama. ..."
"... Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally oblivious to their own uselessness. ..."
"... How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries. On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN. ..."
"... Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began. ..."
"... Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside the group consensus. ..."
"... So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to face. ..."
"... Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set himself up for success in the next elections. ..."
"... What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink" in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles' thought pattern & subsequent action. ..."
"... To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically sworn in on a bible. ..."
Long ago, when I was a spear carrying middle ranker at CIA, a colleague took me aside and said
that he had something to tell me "as a friend," that was very important. He told me that his wife
had worked for years in the Agency's Administrative Directorate, as it was then called, where she
had noticed that some new officers coming out of the Career Trainee program had red tags on their
personnel files. She eventually learned from her boss that the tags represented assessments that
those officers had exceptional potential as senior managers. He added, however, that the reverse
appeared to be true in practice as they were generally speaking serial failures as they ascended
the bureaucratic ladder, even though their careers continued to be onward and upward on paper. My
friend's wife concluded, not unreasonably, that only genuine a-holes had what it took to get promoted
to the most senior ranks.
I was admittedly skeptical but some recent activity by former and current Directors and Acting
Directors of CIA has me wondering if something like my friend's wife's observation about senior management
might indeed be true. But it would have to be something other than tagging files, as many of the
directors and their deputies did not come up through the ranks and there seems to be a similar strain
of lunacy at other U.S. government intelligence agencies. It might be time to check the water supply
in the Washington area as there is very definitely something in the kool-aid that is producing odd
behavior.
Now I should pause for a moment and accept that the role of intelligence services is to identify
potential threats before they become active, so a certain level of acute paranoia goes with the job.
But at the same time, one would expect a level of professionalism which would mandate accuracy rather
than emotion in assessments coupled with an eschewing of any involvement in the politics of foreign
and national security policy formulation. The enthusiasm with which a number of senior CIA personnel
have waded into the Trump swamp and have staked out positions that contradict genuine national interests
suggests that little has been learned since CIA Director George Tenet sat behind Secretary of State
Colin Powell in the UN and nodded sagaciously as Saddam Hussein's high crimes and misdemeanors were
falsely enumerated.
Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who
have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than
anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war
and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter.
Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money
flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being
made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed
by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority
of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been
sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been
selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's
defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level
would appear to be fully on board with that effort.
The most recent inexplicable comments come from the current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speaking
at the Aspen Institute Security Forum. He began by asserting that Russia had interfered in the U.S.
election
before saying that the logic behind Russia's Middle Eastern strategy is to stay in place in Syria
so Moscow can "stick it to America." He didn't define the "it" so one must assume that "it" stands
for any utensil available, ranging from cruise missiles to dinner forks. He then elaborated, somewhat
obscurely, that "I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think
they find that something that's useful."
Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting
ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged
in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It
just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been
fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate
has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency
to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors
which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was
revealed in the press two weeks ago.
Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of
totally bereft of his senses. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee back in May,
he suggested that some Trump associates might have been recruited by the Russian intelligence service.
He testified that
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions
between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about
because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether
or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."
In his testimony, Brennan apparently forgot to mention that the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs
on American citizens. Nor did he explain how he had come upon the information in the first place
as it had been handed over by foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians,
and at least some of it had been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first
place. Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected,
which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate started.
Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting
attended by Pompeo, he
told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials
should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent
(one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down.
A lesser known former CIA senior official is
John McLaughlin,
who briefly served as acting Director in 2004. McLaughlin was particularly outraged by Trump's recent
speech to the Boy Scouts, which he described as having the feel "of a third world authoritarian's
youth rally." He added that "It gave me the creeps it was like watching the late Venezuelan [President
Hugo] Chavez."
And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied
to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration.
Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose
show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been
some Russian recruitment of Trump people.
He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify
vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr.
Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr.
Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
I and others noted at the time that Putin and Trump had never met, not even through proxies, while
we also wondered how one could be both unwitting and a recruited agent as intelligence recruitment
implies control and taking direction. Morell was non-plussed, unflinching and just a tad sanctimonious
in affirming that his own intelligence training (as an analyst who never recruited a spy in his life)
meant that "[I] call it as I see it."
One could also cite Michael Hayden and James Clapper, though the latter was not CIA They all
basically hew to the same line about Russia, often in more-or-less the same words, even though no
actual evidence has been produced to support their claims. That unanimity of thinking is what is
peculiar while academics like Stephen Cohen, Stephen Walt, Andrew Bacevich, and John Mearsheimer,
who have studied Russia in some depth and understand the country and its leadership far better than
a senior CIA officer, detect considerable nuance in what is taking place. They all believe that the
hardline policies current in Washington are based on an eagerness to go with the flow on the comforting
inside-the- beltway narrative that paints Russia as a threat to vital interests. That unanimity of
viewpoint should surprise no one as this is more of less the same government with many of the same
people that led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They all have a vested interested in the
health and well-being of a fully funded national security state.
And the other groupthink that seems to prevail among the senior managers except Pompeo is that
they all hate Donald Trump and have done so since long before he won the election. That is somewhat
odd, but it perhaps reflects a fear that Trump would interfere with the richly rewarding establishment
politics that had enabled their careers. But it does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CIA
employees. Though it is admittedly unscientific analysis on my part, I know a lot of former and some
current CIA employees but do not know a single one who voted for Hillary Clinton. Nearly all voted
for Trump.
Beyond that exhibition of tunnel vision and sheer ignorance, the involvement of former senior
intelligence officials in politics is itself deplorable and is perhaps symptomatic of the breakdown
in the comfortable bipartisan national security consensus that has characterized the past fifty years.
Once upon time former CIA officers would retire to the Blue Ridge mountains and raise Labradors,
but we are now into something much more dangerous if the intelligence community, which has been responsible
for most of the recent leaks, begins to feel free to assert itself from behind the scenes. As Senator
Chuck Schumer
recently warned "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways
from Sunday at getting back at you."
In jumping this fascist nihilist shark, the groupthinkers have closed themselves off from the
logical conclusion to their viewpoint, which is final annihilation.
Brennan, Morell, and Pompeo should better find ways to justify their salaries: the U.S. has
suffered the greatest breach in cybersecurity on their watch:
" an enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members
of Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump, but t he media avoids
providing nightly updates about these 5 spies that have compromised Congress ."
"In total, Imran's firm was employed by 31 Democrats in Congress, some of whom held extremely
sensitive positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House
Committee on Foreign Affair s."
Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and
blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan,
and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time.
And back to reality we have VIPS Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the
United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking
came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia.
That is war, World War Three and it would seem now that Congress is marching that way, but
the report below hold the key to fighting back.
One of the VIPS is William Binney fomer NSA Technical Director, an important expert. leading
the group is Ray McGovern with some whit and grace, well yes how about some sanity, to which humor
is important to the insight and to stay in the sights of what is clever thievery and worse. Much
worse,
and there is a twinkle in the eye when realize that it is straight forward.
And Congress could stop it tout sweet, but well old habits but they have taken an Oath of Office,
so, so what, yeah they did go after Bernie, so will you challenge your elected officials, either
do their sworn duty or resign, for what this sanctions bill against Russia and Iran is a declaration
of war, not only against Russia and Iran, but a declaration of war against the United States.
for there is no reason to do this against Russia when indeed there are great opportunities to
get along, but war is the insanity as it is sedition and treason. Tell them that,
I wonder if groupthink exists.
In any organisation people know quite well why the organisation exists, what the threats are to
its existence.
If they think about this, I wonder.
The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like
the British MI5.
The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words.
If indeed Trump changes USA foreign policy, no longer trying to control the world, the CIA is
obsolete, as obsolete as NATO.
" but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA
had any say in the matter."
Not to defend the CIA, but didn't Rumsfeld, doubt the enthusiasm of the CIA for providing the
slanted, bogus, "sexed up" intelligence the Executive required to make its "destroy Iraq now"
case ? So Rumsfeld therefore set up an independent intelligence agency within the Defence Dept
to provide/create the required "intelligence" ?
I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think they find
that something that's useful."
Yeah, because that's what resource-constrained countries with limited ability to tap the global
capital markets do. Methinks Mr. Pompeo is projecting his and the neocons' fantasies on the Russians.
As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor
decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep
State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who
make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants
of the Deep State.
Being resistant to jargon and catch phrases it is only slowly that I have accepted that "Deep
State" is not entirely pretentious waffle when used to describe aspects of the US. However I may
not be your only reader PG who would appreciate a clear explanatory description of the American
Deep State and how it works.
Here are some suggested parameters.
The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in
the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal
of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary
to its purposes.
And its origins imply that it is not just one in a number of major influences ln government or
those who vote for it.
So one has to acknowledge that in the US the Deep State has to be different in the important
respect that levers of power are observably wielded by lobbies for the aged, gun owners and sellers,
Israel, Wall Street, bio fuels, sugar and other ag, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, the arms industry,
Disney and other Hollywood and media, health insurers and the medical profession, and I could
go on.
These are all relevant to legal events like votes on impeachment or to hold up appointments.
The CIA and FBI together completely united (and note how disunited 9/11 showed them to be) wouldn't
remotely approach the old Turkish Deep State's ability to stage a coup. Are all of the putative
elements of the Deep State together today as powerful as J.Edgar Hoover with his dirt files on
everyone? (A contrast and compare exercise of today's presumed Deep State configuration and modus
operandi with the simpler Hoover days might shine some light on who does what and how today. And
how effectively).
To avoid lack of focus can a convincing account of the US Deep State be best given in terms
of a plausible scenario for
getting rid of Trump as President and/or
maintaining the lunacy and hubris which has the US wasting its substance on totally unnecessary
antagonistic relations with China and Russia and interference in the ME?
I would read such accounts with great interest. (Handwavers need not apply).
Of course the US Deep State must hate Russia. First, Jews have a very long history of hating Russia and Russians. That never changed. The
USSR was not Russia; the USSR was Marxism replacing Russia. Jews tended to love that. Rich Jews
from across the world, from the US and the UK of most interest to us, sent money to support the
Bolshevik Revolution.
Russia managed to survive the USSR and is slowly coming back around to Russian common sense
from the Christian perspective. Neither Jews nor their WASP BFFs can ever forgive that. They want
Russia to act now to commit cultural and genetic suicide, like Western Europe and the entire Anglosphere
are doing.
@polistraThe CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service,
long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has
done.
The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence
Presidency.
While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies,
it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos,
the bankster mafiosi.
But doing so would mean a voluntary end to playing the role of Sauron, determined to find and
wear the One Ring to Rule Them All. The average Elite WASP, and his Jewish BFF, definitely would
prefer to destroy the world, at least outside their gated compounds of endless luxury, than to
step down from that level of global domination.
@Wizard
of Oz Wiz – Here is an article I did on the Deep State two years ago. It was one of the first
in the US media looking at the issue. It would have to be updated now in light of Trump, but much
of what it states is still more-or-less correct.
But we need to make certain that your use of the word 'mafiosi' does not lead anyone to assume
that group has more than a handful of Italians. Jews, WASPs, and continental Germanics each will
outnumber Italians by at least 30 to 1.
I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are –
Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments.
The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans
who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too
well the truth about the Clintons and Obama.
Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the
Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success
balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead
and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally
oblivious to their own uselessness.
Well before he was elected I had a letter delivered to President Trump in which I outlined in
detail what would happen to him if he did not immediately purge the CIA of these assholes. I know
that at least some people on his staff read it but, of course, my advice was ignored. Trump has
paid dearly for not listening to an ordinary CIA guy who wanted to give him a reality brief on
those vicious snakes.
Historical facts teach humanity that Anglo-Saxon group of Nations was built on slavery, thuggery
and theft of other peace loving Civilizations.
We Slavs are the New "niggers", hate is the glue that holds you "toGether".
People of color have been successfully conditioned and practice it as well.
Time will tell how well it holds when balloon bursts and 99% gets called to serve as cannon fodder.
Terrorizing UNARMED and WEAKER is not true test of "superiority" and "exceptionalism".
Tiny, extremely tiny minority of Anglo-Saxons and Satraps understand this.
How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they
had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries.
On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed
to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the
DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN.
Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes
of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then
and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because
of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in
the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption
and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began.
It probably does as do group psychoses and group fantasies.. Anyone who's ever served in a beuaracracy
knows that groupthink exists.
Take a bunch of mediocre minds. And, they do exist, as Garrison Keiler once famously made a
joke out of with his line Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.
Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career
advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside
the group consensus. If everyone is wrong, then there is safety in the group. After all, if they
are wrong, so was everyone else in the organization. Thus they are immune to attack and censure
for being wrong. But if someone takes a position outside of the group consensus, that can be a
career-ending move if they are wrong, as now everyone else will be in the I-told-U-So camp. And
even if they are correct, they will still be hated and shunned just for being the person who pointed
out to the group that they are wrong.
So, you take your typical average mind, and not only do they not have any great insights of
their own, but they tend to stick to the group out of sheer survival and then when you take a
mass of these mediocre minds you have 'groupthink'.
If only Trump would really clean the swamp - particularly the neo-cons and other traitors and
globalists. One can dream ....
What we've learned from Trump is that 'Draining the Swamp' will
take more than an individual. It will take a political movement.
One sees this on the fringes of politics. Someone gets the idea of running for President, and
they point out all that is wrong. But, they focus only on their own campaign, their own goal,
and they thus gloss over the fact that they'll be outnumbered and powerless even if they win.
Seen this often on the Left. The most recent example is Bernie Sanders. Likewise, had Bernie
been elected President, he too would face an entrenched establishment and media with only a small
fraction of the Congress supporting him.
Change has to be built from the bottom up. There are no shortcuts. Electing a Trump, or a Nader
or a Bernie does not lead to real change. Step one is to build the political movement such that
it has real voting block power and which has already won voting majorities in the legislature
before the movement achieves the election of a President.
What Trump has needed to be doing for this first two years is to form clear divisions that
he could then take to his voters in the mid-term elections. He's needed to lay out his own agenda.
So what if he loses votes in Congress? He then takes that agenda back to the voters in 2018 with
a nationwide slate of Congressional candidates who support that agenda and runs a midterm campaign
asking the voters to help him drain that swamp.
So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who
cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless
war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support
me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer
to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to
face.
Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set
himself up for success in the next elections.
It is a serious error to consider President Trump "naive."
What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink"
in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles'
thought pattern & subsequent action.
To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by
the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically
sworn in on a bible.
Mr. Trump is neither naive nor stupid. Sheldon Adelson would not donate $millioms to any POTUS
wannabe who could not effectively lead the American Groupthink tradition. Subsequently, the political
horror show is brought to you in the understandable form of the perpetually elusive Deep State
which gets annual Academy Award.
"Carnage needs to destroyed" mentality is dominant among the USA neoliberal elite and drives the policy toward Russia.
They all supported neoconservative extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda directed on weakening Russian and
establishing of world dominance. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya. ..."
"... And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [Ł1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
I know something of spectroscopy. The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation. The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those? The German link is different. How about the Iranian? or isn't this the Kish we are talking about?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"[Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western
thought since the last war, certainly all "progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that
human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of
life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues.
Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that
human beings don't only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control
and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and
self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flag and loyalty-parades Whereas Socialism, and even
capitalism in a grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said
to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings
itself at his feet"
? George Orwell
BRH, in his perversity, supports Capitalism/Communism and the growth of the Gay Disco
Global State. He should be with us but that would mean discarding this Holy of Holies, World
War Two American military triumphalism. He jus can't, the Truth be damned.
Americans really do not understand who Hitler was, and that is EVRYONE I know. And they
never understood, even in the 50s. But the British understand, but made a deal with the
devil.
But let's start everything in order.
For the dualistic consciousness of Americans, the natural desire is to belittle the role
of the USSR in the defeat of Hitler's Germany, since this does not fit their concept of "good
guys vs bad guys " – if the Russians are the bad guys, then why did they fight along
with the good guys against the bad guy Hitler?
In addition, in the process of changing generations, they are more and more inclined to
the view that Hitler was not so bad, and their fathers and grandfathers put a lot of
accusations against him, just as America puts many accusations on those she desire to bomb
today.
Of course, this should not apply to American intelligentsia, but, as I understand it, it
is difficult to live in a society that professes these or other errors en masse, and not to
allow these errors to penetrate your brain and soul, even if you absolutely know that these
errors are invented by you propaganda.
Especially if these errors are invented by your own propaganda.
Hitler was vilified publicly but glorified privately by the elite (Allen Dulles in
particular). He provided a valuable service by providing the test bed for theories and
practices (eugenics, wholesale population controls and disruptions, sophisticated propaganda
techniques, and perpetual full-spectrum wars) which have since been perfected and are being
implemented much more discreetly and effectively now.
"... John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 – at the tail end of the Cheney regime – concocted by the Pentagon's shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence Assessments Branch. ..."
"... But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic; that's when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files – detailing the CIA's vast hacking/cyber espionage repertoire. ..."
"... This was the CIA as a Naked Emperor like never before – including the dodgy overseeing ops of the Center for Cyber Intelligence, an ultra-secret NSA counterpart. ..."
"... The monolithic narrative by the Deep State faction aligned with the Clinton machine was that "the Russians" hacked the DNC servers. Assange was always adamant; that was not the work of a state actor – and he could prove it technically. ..."
"... The DoJ wanted a deal – and they did make an offer to WikiLeaks. But then FBI director James Comey killed it. The question is why. ..."
"... Some theoretically sound reconstructions of Comey's move are available. But the key fact is Comey already knew – via his close connections to the top of the DNC – that this was not a hack; it was a leak. ..."
"... Ambassador Craig Murray has stressed, over and over again (see here ) how the DNC/Podesta files published by WikiLeaks came from two different US sources; one from within the DNC and the other from within US intel. ..."
"... he release by WikiLeaks in April 2017 of the malware mechanisms inbuilt in "Grasshopper" and the "Marble Framework" were indeed a bombshell. This is how the CIA inserts foreign language strings in source code to disguise them as originating from Russia, from Iran, or from China. The inestimable Ray McGovern, a VIPS member, stressed how Marble Framework "destroys this story about Russian hacking." ..."
"... No wonder then CIA director Mike Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of being a "non-state hostile intelligence agency" ..."
"... Joshua Schulte, the alleged leaker of Vault 7, has not faced a US court yet. There's no question he will be offered a deal by the USG if he aggress to testify against Julian Assange. ..."
"... George Galloway has a guest who explains it all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VvPFMyPvHM&t=8s ..."
"... Escobar is brain dead if he can't figure out that Trumpenstein is totally on board with destroying Assange. As if bringing on pukes like PompAss, BoltON, and Abrams doesn't scream it. ..."
The Made-by-FBI indictment of
Julian Assange does look like a dead man walking. No evidence. No documents. No surefire
testimony. Just a crossfire of conditionals...
But never underestimate the legalese contortionism of US government (USG) functionaries. As
much as Assange may not be characterized as a journalist and publisher, the thrust of the
affidavit is to accuse him of conspiring to commit espionage.
In fact the charge is not even that Assange hacked a USG computer and obtained classified
information; it's that he may have discussed it with Chelsea Manning and may have had the
intention to go for a hack. Orwellian-style thought crime charges don't get any better than
that. Now the only thing missing is an AI software to detect them.
Assange legal adviser Geoffrey Robertson – who also happens to represent another
stellar political prisoner, Brazil's Lula – cut
straight to the chase (at 19:22 minutes);
"The justice he is facing is justice, or injustice, in America I would hope the British
judges would have enough belief in freedom of information to throw out the extradition
request."
That's far from a done deal. Thus the inevitable consequence; Assange's legal team is
getting ready to prove, no holds barred, in a British court, that this USG indictment for
conspiracy to commit computer hacking is just an hors d'oeuvre for subsequent espionage
charges, in case Assange is extradited to US soil.
All about Vault 7
John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to
destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 – at the tail end
of the Cheney regime – concocted by the Pentagon's shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence
Assessments Branch.
It was all about criminalizing WikiLeaks and personally smearing Assange, using "shock
troops enlisted in the media -- those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the
truth."
This plan remains more than active – considering how Assange's arrest has been covered
by the bulk of US/UK mainstream media.
By 2012, already in the Obama era, WikiLeaks detailed the astonishing "scale of the US Grand
Jury Investigation" of itself. The USG always denied such a grand jury existed.
"The US Government has stood up and coordinated a joint interagency criminal investigation
of Wikileaks comprised of a partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) including:
CENTCOM; SOUTHCOM; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); Defense Information Systems Agency
(DISA); Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA); US Army Criminal Investigation Division
(CID) for USFI (US Forces Iraq) and 1st Armored Division (AD); US Army Computer Crimes
Investigative Unit (CCIU); 2nd Army (US Army Cyber Command); Within that or in addition,
three military intelligence investigations were conducted. Department of Justice (DOJ) Grand
Jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of State (DOS) and Diplomatic
Security Service (DSS). In addition, Wikileaks has been investigated by the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Office of the National CounterIntelligence
Executive (ONCIX), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the House Oversight Committee; the
National Security Staff Interagency Committee, and the PIAB (President's Intelligence
Advisory Board)."
But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic;
that's when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files – detailing the CIA's vast
hacking/cyber espionage repertoire.
This was the CIA as a Naked Emperor like never before – including the dodgy
overseeing ops of the Center for Cyber Intelligence, an ultra-secret NSA counterpart.
WikiLeaks got Vault 7 in early 2017. At the time WikiLeaks had already published the DNC
files – which the unimpeachable Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
systematically proved was a leak, not a hack.
The monolithic narrative by the Deep State faction aligned with the Clinton machine was
that "the Russians" hacked the DNC servers. Assange was always adamant; that was not the work
of a state actor – and he could prove it technically.
There was some movement towards a deal, brokered by one of Assange's lawyers; WikiLeaks
would not publish the most damning Vault 7 information in exchange for Assange's safe passage
to be interviewed by the US Department of Justice (DoJ).
The DoJ wanted a deal – and they did make an offer to WikiLeaks. But then FBI
director James Comey killed it. The question is why.
It's a leak, not a hack
Some theoretically sound
reconstructions of Comey's move are available. But the key fact is Comey already knew
– via his close connections to the top of the DNC – that this was not a hack; it
was a leak.
Ambassador Craig Murray has stressed, over and over again (see
here ) how the DNC/Podesta files published by WikiLeaks came from two different US sources;
one from within the DNC and the other from within US intel.
There was nothing for Comey to "investigate". Or there would have, if Comey had ordered the
FBI to examine the DNC servers. So why talk to Julian Assange?
T he release by WikiLeaks in April 2017 of the malware mechanisms inbuilt in
"Grasshopper" and the "Marble Framework" were indeed a bombshell. This is how the CIA inserts
foreign language strings in source code to disguise them as originating from Russia, from Iran,
or from China. The inestimable Ray McGovern, a VIPS member, stressed how Marble Framework
"destroys this story about Russian hacking."
No wonder then CIA director Mike Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of being a "non-state hostile
intelligence agency", usually manipulated by Russia.
Joshua Schulte, the alleged leaker of Vault 7,
has not faced a US court yet. There's no question he will be offered a deal by the USG if he
aggress to testify against Julian Assange.
It's a long and winding road, to be traversed in at least two years, if Julian Assange is
ever to be extradited to the US. Two things for the moment are already crystal clear. The USG
is obsessed to shut down WikiLeaks once and for all. And because of that, Julian Assange will
never get a fair trial in the "so-called 'Espionage Court'" of the Eastern District of
Virginia, as
detailed by former CIA counterterrorism officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou.
Meanwhile, the non-stop demonization of Julian Assange will proceed unabated, faithful to
guidelines established over a decade ago. Assange is even accused of being a US intel op, and
WikiLeaks a splinter Deep State deep cover op.
Maybe President Trump will maneuver the hegemonic Deep State into having Assange testify
against the corruption of the DNC; or maybe Trump caved in completely to "hostile intelligence
agency" Pompeo and his CIA gang baying for blood. It's all ultra-high-stakes shadow play
– and the show has not even begun.
Not to mention the Pentagram has silenced 100,000 whistleblower complaints by
Intimidation, threats, money or accidents over 5 years . A Whistleblower only does this when
know there is something seriously wrong. Just Imagine how many knew something was wrong but
looked the other way.
Maybe President Trump will maneuver the hegemonic Deep State into having Assange testify
against the corruption of the DNC; or maybe Trump caved in completely to "hostile
intelligence agency" Pompeo and his CIA gang baying for blood.
Escobar is brain dead if he can't figure out that Trumpenstein is totally on board with
destroying Assange. As if bringing on pukes like PompAss, BoltON, and Abrams doesn't scream it.
assange and wikileaks are the real criminals despite being crimeless. the **** is a
sanctioned criminal, allowed to be criminal with the system because the rest of the
sanctioned criminals would be exposed if she was investigated.
this is not the rule of laws. this is the law of rulers.
"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."
"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."
"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."
"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."
I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say
about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice
tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests
weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were
on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute
pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.
The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's
decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law"
and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging
"norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was
100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law
for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they
were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone
really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history
of the FBI.
For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or "
rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve
an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress,
and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates
discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional
system put there by the holy Founders.
In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington
about finally creating a
legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying
to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you
want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives,
articles with headlines like
"Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :
The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions
on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers,
undercover agents and covert criminal activity.
The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and
procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I.
to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins
and other abuses.
followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year
later, "Don't Forget the
FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost
reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis
wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."
The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of
its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists.
It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds
like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was
probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at
least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought,
and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social
Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful
capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks
and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,
"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public
domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."
According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it
was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind.
The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally
sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and
the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens
of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists
stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.
TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that
Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were
running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation
and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their
report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's
Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.
Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton
Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good
at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective
agencies.
In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and
budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing
it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying
on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American
ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great
blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central
secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."
So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all
on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ
from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress
took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created
a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified
until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive
branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs
licking their balls. Happy New Year!"
The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation,
changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal
domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting
what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or
destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.
The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary
of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention
facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands
on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919,
but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge
to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After
that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the
cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely
nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI
persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.
So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and
his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to
investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended
himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!):
"We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing
the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."
Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing
attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed
it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic
mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street
bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was
so successful he'd ordered up more.
The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf
Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession
about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable
new life in New York.
By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing
it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI
spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William
Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and
Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed
for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as
"the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow."
Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as
many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress
a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."
Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly
an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging
Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every
corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter
and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic
recognition for the next decade.
Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs.
When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators'
home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake,
and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced
to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.
"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in
sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."
With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's
control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected
and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America
from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American
homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected
homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals
from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according
to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers
were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother
until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his
"friend" Clyde Tolson .
In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that
he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai
Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included
libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by
the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.
In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin
Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish
way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really
a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try
to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession
of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become
a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with
other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note
urging King to commit suicide.
FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes
After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing
FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby
about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the
Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked
selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,
"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these
people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody,
you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."
Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally
opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing
so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really
make us a laughingstock around the world."
Imagine that.
Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey
"Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to
fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the
move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing
old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially
after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his
Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year
on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.
Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:
Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as
strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.
Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?
Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested
in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.
Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number
3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of
Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan
showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries
of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists.
The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage
of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's
possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use
them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.
Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the
next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to
fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met
him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon
and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved;
the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of
the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.
The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to
keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's
crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold
back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason.
Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades
that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What
does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an
open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.
The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire.
Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?
Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton.
Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.
Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred
by his employer.
My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away
with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class
called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters
of Deceit.
In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback
copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.
So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns
for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.
I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when
I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.
We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when
it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"
Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't
his place.
It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since
they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible
in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over
Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies
like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.
Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and
"reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept
reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the
FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end
of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.
Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence
of critical editing who knows what that may be?
Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark
Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.
So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded
IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!
Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when
the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up
a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and
statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are
struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking
day
Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially
the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup
de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.
One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning
gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history,
back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding
fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through
a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of
the Empire and our fellow creatures
PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class
parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet
where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside
of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0
The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements
of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism
was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and
its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white
"reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor
to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment.
Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have
a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.
Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any
treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably
Operation CHAOS (early
60s to early 70s) by the CIA and
COINTELPRO(late 1950s to
early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms
were initiated.
Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for
the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the
most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal
gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays
this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast
a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel
targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues
(such as street murders in Mexico).
The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within
corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate
Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed
Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving
the FBI in 2005.
Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large
corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate
executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't
investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.
When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible
record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain
or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the
1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and
1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance
under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.
Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record
on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins,
is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if
still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI.
All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters
are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration
itself.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the
Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The
Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most
of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men
in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number
of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this
role.
Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to
investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations,
particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have
been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian
business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the
1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at
either.
Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality,
nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so
on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are
dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about
the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.
The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director
Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation
into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams
Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured,
was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again,
I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton,
-- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."
"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington,
was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly
understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah
up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was
supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the
matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)
In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding
scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running
into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite
having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after
our precious bodily fluids!
I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership.
Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not
allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind
Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with
AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes
that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
"... Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. ..."
"... The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment, as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player. ..."
"... Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time. The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence of NATO, for instance. ..."
"... Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown. Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline. ..."
"... Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues, will consolidate its economic domination. ..."
"... A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its different dimensions ..."
"... Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous combination. ..."
Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite
that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite
inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. Alternative social forces, like
the ones behind Trump's presidential triumph, only have a limited impact on domestic and ultimately
on foreign policy. A conceptual detour and a brief on history and on Trump's domestic setting when
he was elected will help clarifying these theses.
Beyond the different costumes that it wears (dealing with ideology, international law, and even
religion), foreign policy follows domestic policy. The domestic policy actors are the social forces
at work at a given point of time, mainly the economic agents and their ambitions (in their multiple
expressions), including the ruling power elite. Society's aspirations not only relate to material
welfare, but also to ideological priorities that population segments may have at a given point of
time.
From America's initial days until the mid 1800s, there seems to have been a broad alignment of
US foreign policy with the wishes of its power elite and other social forces. America's expansionism,
a fundamental bulwark of its foreign policy from early days, reflected the need to fulfill its growing
population's ambitions for land and, later on, the need to find foreign markets for its excess production,
initially agricultural and later on manufacturing. It can be said that American foreign policy was
broadly populist at that time. The power elite was more or less aligned in achieving these expansionist
goals and was able to provide convenient ideological justification through the writings of Jefferson
and Madison, among others.
As the country expanded, diverging interests became stronger and ultimately differing social forces
caused a significant fracture in society. The American Civil War was the climax of the conflicted
interests between agricultural and manufacturing led societies. Fifty years later, a revealing manifestation
of this divergence (which survived the Civil War), as it relates to foreign policy, is found during
the early days of the Russian Revolution when, beyond the ideological revulsion of Bolshevism, the
US was paralyzed between the agricultural and farming businesses seeking exports to Russia and the
domestic extractive industries interested in stopping exports of natural resources from this country.
The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the
ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's
aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic
forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment,
as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War
II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player.
Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War
II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces
shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time.
The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence
of NATO, for instance.
Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable
to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown.
Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in
the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the
bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened
and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict
across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline.
Trump won his presidency because he was able to get support from the country's growing frustrated
white population. His main social themes (bringing jobs to America by stopping the decline of its
manufacturing industry, preventing further US consumer dependence on foreign imports and halting
immigration) fitted well with the electors' anger. Traditional populist themes linked to foreign
policy (like Russophobia) did not play a big role in the last election. But whether or not the Trump
administration can align with the ruling power elite in a manner that addresses the key social and
economic needs of the American people is still to be seen.
Back to foreign policy, we need to distinguish between Trump's style of government and his administration's
actions. At least until now, focusing excessively on Trump's style has dangerously distracted from
his true intentions. One example is the confusion about his initial stance on NATO which was simplistically
seen as highly critical to the very existence of this organization. On NATO, all that Trump really
cared was to achieve a "fair" sharing of expenditures with other members and to press them to
honor
their funding commitments.
From immigration to defense spending, there is nothing irrational about Trump's foreign policy
initiatives, as they just reflect a different reading on the American people's aspirations and, consequently,
they attempt to rely on supporting points within the power elite which are different from the ones
used in the past.
Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge
it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues,
will consolidate its economic domination. A far-reaching lesson, although still being ignored, is
that China's economic might is showing that capitalism as understood in the West is not winning,
much less in its American format. It also shows that democracy may not be that relevant, as it is
not necessarily a corollary or a condition for economic development. Perhaps it even shows the superiority
of China's economic model, but this is a different matter.
As Trump becomes more aware about his limitations, he has naturally reversed to the basic imprints
of America's traditional foreign policy, particularly concerning defense. His emphasis on a further
increase in defense spending is not done for prestigious or national security reasons, but as an
attempt to preserve a job generating infrastructure without considering the catastrophic consequences
that it may cause.
On Iran, Obama's initiative to seek normalization was an attempt to walk a fine line (and to find
a less conflictive path) between supporting the US traditional Middle East allies (mainly the odd
combination of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and recognizing Iran's growing aspirations. Deep
down, Obama was trying to acknowledge Iran's historical viability as a country and a society that
will not disappear from the map, while Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, may not be around in a few
years. Trump's Iran policy until now only represents a different weighing of priorities, although
it is having far reaching consequences on America's credibility as a reliable contractual party in
international affairs.
In the case of Afghanistan, Trump's decision to increase boots on the ground does not break the
inertia of US past administrations. Aside from temporary containment, an increasing military presence
or a change in tactics will not alter fundamentally this reality.
Concerning Russia, and regardless of what Trump has said, actions speak more than words. A continuous
deterioration of relations seems inevitable.
Trump will also learn, if he has not done so already, about the growth of multipolar forces in
world's events. Russia has mastered this reality for several years and is quite skillful at using
it as a basic tool of its own foreign goals. Our multipolar world will expand, and Trump may even
inadvertently exacerbate it through its actions (for instance in connection with the different stands
taken by the US and its European allies concerning Iran).
While fulfilling the aspirations of the American people seems more difficult within the existing
capitalist framework, there are also growing apprehensions coming from America's power elite as it
becomes more frustrated due to its incapacity of being more effective at the world level. America's
relative adolescence in world's history will become more and more apparent in the coming years.
A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its
different dimensions. The US has never suffered the consequences of an international conflict in
its own backyard. The American Civil War, despite all the suffering that it caused, was primarily
a domestic event with no foreign intervention (contrary to the wishes of the Confederation). The
deep social and psychological damage caused by war is not part of America's consciousness as it is,
for instance in Germany, Russia or Japan. America is insensitive to the lessons of history because
it has a very short history itself.
Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there
is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined
with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous
combination.
Oscar Silva-Valladares is a former investment banker that has lived and worked in North and
Latin America, Western & Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the Philippines and Western Africa.
He currently chairs Davos International Advisory, an advisory firm focused on strategic consulting
across emerging markets.
DANA BASH, CNN: So explosive. So incredibly serious. The Times report also says that James Comey created similar memos after the
other meetings that he had with the president. So this could be just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe the most explosive, but it's very
clear that James Comey wanted to get out there that this happened, created this paper trail real time, contemporaneously rather,
in order to protect himself from exactly what happened last week, him being fired, him being blamed. You know, wanting to know that
he has sort of the information at his disposal if, in fact, this happened...
If you just take a step back, Wolf, just in the past 24 hours, right or wrong, what this president has done, his first 100 plus
days, even before he came into office is pick fights with the intelligence community and now the law enforcement community. Particularly
the way, never mind he fired James Comey, but the way in which he did it, not giving him the respect of actually telling him in person
or at least not having him find out from cable news.
So we know that they talk about the deep state -- well these are communities that have a lot of loyalty within -- and know how
to get back, even if you're the president of the United States.
And the fact is that when the intelligence community found out about the conversation that the president had with the Russians,
talking about classified information, we don't know all the details.
We're told that it wasn't as bad as it might have seemed initially, that's what the White House sources are saying, but still,
the intelligence community leaked that out. Now we know that the FBI director was keeping notes on many things. But the fact that
this is the first one that he made clear and made public.
It's so incredibly explosive, as Jeff said, is the clearest most dangerous sign yet of potential obstruction of justice. Makes
you think, what else is going to happen? And it's very hard for Republicans who have in the past 24 hours been more aggressively
critical of the president begging for a crisis-free day or crisis-free hour, very hard for them not to take this incredibly seriously.
When I see the right-of-center DNC supporters saying, “Our democracy has been
attacked,” I an reminded of the interview Hermann Goering gave while he was waiting to
be executed.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
I think Professor Cohen has a real point in the following statements:
" In the era of weapons of mass destruction, not only nuclear, but primarily nuclear, ever
more sophisticated, the Russians now have a new generation of nuclear weapons -- Putin
announced them on March 1, they were dismissed here, but they're real–that can elude
any missile defense. ..
Russia has now thwarted us; they now have missile defense-evading
nuclear weapons from submarines, to aircraft, to missiles. And Putin has said, 'It's time to
negotiate an end to this new arms race,' and he's 100 percent right. So when I heard Trump
say, in 2016, we have to cooperate with Russia, I had already become convinced
So I began to speak positively about Trump at that moment -- that would have been
probably around the summer of 2016 -- just on this one point, because none of the other
candidates were advocating cooperation with Russia "
Then, when he goes on to elaborate on China's weaponry and posit including them in the
next round of draw-down negotiations, as far off as that may look – that to me is what
Trump can use for his re-election. I do believe his attitude towards Russia won him his first
term.
Those Russia-gate kooks need to focus on the American people, not on Trump. Well, maybe
they did, and still do. It's really about us, not him.
When I see the right-of-center DNC supporters saying, "Our democracy has been attacked," I
an reminded of the interview Hermann Goering gave while he was waiting to be executed.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
"... Rep. Omar is playing around with assasination in taking on the Israeli Lobby and other powerful interests in Washington. I would be willing to bet that there are already contracts out on her life with the purpose of scaring anyone else from raising there head and stating the obvious. ..."
Good article. The problem is that no one in the USA gives a s**t about facts. The
Government is immune from public opinion. Of course the MSN is going to crucify her .
Rep.
Omar is playing around with assasination in taking on the Israeli Lobby and other powerful
interests in Washington. I would be willing to bet that there are already contracts out on
her life with the purpose of scaring anyone else from raising there head and stating the
obvious.
You're absolutely right. Americans are happy to believe the official narrative because it
doesn't threaten their comfy pathetic lives. What they don't seem to realize is that the rest
of the world doesn't share their blind gullibility.
Bigotry, violence, and extreme language – America, it all literally oozes from the
pores of your skin. You just look terrible anymore to outside observers.
Not only they lost all moral authority. UK MSM became openly neofascist in some areas exceeeding the press of Third Riech and the
USSR in distortions and falsifications. .
Notable quotes:
"... Corruption of government and media, is also exceedingly dangerous, for everyone's mental health. People begin to subconsciously know that they are being lied to, but they cannot accept it, because the lies conflict with their worldview, which quite naturally is based on trust for authority, and that nice man reading the news on TV. ..."
"... In 2004, Karl Rove in The Bush Government " Guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [ ] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do' ..."
Even if the Skripal affair WAS staged, you shouldn't get too excited about it. In fact, you should be rather pleased because
it would demonstrate that the tired, incompetent old UK is still capable of mounting an operation of which young, vigorous, competent
Russia would be proud.
The UK can fake events with the best of them! I would find that reassuring rather than deplorable because it's a nasty world
out there.
The Government and the media, have not been telling the whole truth for a long time. Sometimes they blatantly lie. Most people
still believe most of what they say, as there is an in-built trust of authority, for some very good historical reasons. The Skripal
story, made it obvious to a large number of people, that some of it could not be true. Most still believe it or din't take much
notice. The arrest of Julian Assange made it clearer, to an even larger number of people, that the government and the media, had
lost all moral authority. Still many people didn't take much notice, or were convinced by the lies in the media, that he was a
rapist and should be in jail.
The lies and corruption from government, is now increasingly out in the open. I believe that this is deliberate. I also think
that it is exceedingly dangerous for society for multiple reasons. We are conditioned to accept authority as our moral guide.
They act as an example of acceptable behaviour. If society as a whole, behaved like government, all trust would break down. Virtually
all functions of society are based on trust. Without such trust, nothing will work.
Corruption of government and media, is also exceedingly dangerous, for everyone's mental health. People begin to subconsciously
know that they are being lied to, but they cannot accept it, because the lies conflict with their worldview, which quite naturally
is based on trust for authority, and that nice man reading the news on TV.
I believe this has all been pre-planned, and it will result in a disastrous effect on all society, unless something happens
to bring the governments and media back to truth and sanity. I have no idea what that might be, but I expect it will not be pleasant.
The following was an early warning of the mass insanity affecting The US Government. It has spread like a highly infectious
disease.
In 2004, Karl Rove in The Bush Government " Guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined
as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [ ] 'That's not the way the world
really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's
how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'
"... That fact is a very sad and disturbing commentary on what America is or has become. Tolerating torture and excusing such an activity in the name of national security is the same justification that Stalin and Castro employed to punish dissidents. ..."
"... Let me be clear about my position. If Gina was in fact the Chief of Base and oversaw the application of the waterboarding and other inhuman treatment then she lacks the moral authority to head the CIA. Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of overlooking human rights violations and war crimes. ..."
"... Students of WW II will recall that US military intelligence recruited and protect Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon, as an asset after the war. He murdered Jews and sent others to Auschwitz. He should have been hung. Instead, we turned a blind eye and gave him a paycheck. ..."
"... I've read that she enjoyed torture and mocked a prisoner who was drooling by accused him of faking it. I never knew anything about her sexual orientation but now I have to consider if she's so cruel because she hates men. ..."
"... Yes, waterboarding is torture. We considered it so egregious that we prosecuted Japanese military officers after WWII for using it on POWs. ..."
"... just reinforces the feeling that those at the upper echelons are completely out of touch or alternatively are just lying/posturing to present themselves in a better light. ..."
"... A torturer is a torturer, no matter how one try to glaze it, or sugar coat it. If one is against torture, or the fancy name for it EIT, one should come out and say it like it is. This lady is accused of torturing captives ( enemy combatant) that can't and will not go away unless she come clean. ..."
Before Gina became the Chief of Staff for Rodriguez, what role did she play in the waterboarding of two AQ operatives in Thailand?
It appears that she was at least witting of what was going on. Did she have the authority to decide what measures to apply to the
two? Did she make such decisions?
Those are facts still to be determined. I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. But there are others who I respect
that are adamant in opposing her nomination. The only thing I know for sure is that her nomination will be a bloody and divisive
political battle. If it comes down to embracing waterboarding as an appropriate method to use on suspected terrorists, then a majority
of Americans are supportive of that practice and will cheer the appointment of Haspel.
That fact is a very sad and disturbing commentary
on what America is or has become. Tolerating torture and excusing such an activity in the name of national security is the same justification
that Stalin and Castro employed to punish dissidents. It is true that one man's terrorist is another woman's freedom fighter.
Let me be clear about my position. If Gina was in fact the Chief of Base and oversaw the application of the waterboarding
and other inhuman treatment then she lacks the moral authority to head the CIA. Unfortunately, the United States has a long history
of overlooking human rights violations and war crimes.
Students of WW II will recall that US military intelligence recruited and protect Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon,
as an asset after the war. He murdered Jews and sent others to Auschwitz. He should have been hung. Instead, we turned a blind eye
and gave him a paycheck.
I've read that she enjoyed torture and mocked a prisoner who was drooling by accused him of faking it. I never knew anything about her sexual orientation but now I have to consider if she's so cruel because she hates men.
IIRC, Haspel was the chief of staff to whom Rodriguez refers. That does not sound like a bit player. Would you say that Kelly
is a bit player in the Trump admin? As you say, we should know the facts, but so far it looks like she both participated in torture
and in its cover-up.
With all the crap going on at the FBI, the last thing we need now is a divisive candidate for any top level government position
(torture advocacy is divisive for many of us).
A woman, a lesbian, who cares as long as they are a capable and decent law-abiding
individual.
Yes, waterboarding is torture. We considered it so egregious that we prosecuted Japanese military officers after WWII for using
it on POWs.
And where do you get "admitted" terrorists from? In America, even with suspected terrorists, there is the principle
of innocent until proven guilty. At least we once believed in that standard.
And I very much respect you for your position on this (it is this American's view as well).
What amazes me (and yet doesn't) is the example of Rodriguez's supposed introspection "How bad could this be?" Really?!? That
just strikes me as not having any feel for the media, US citizenry, or even common sense, and just reinforces the feeling that
those at the upper echelons are completely out of touch or alternatively are just lying/posturing to present themselves in a better
light.
PT -- Thank you. Much to consider in these times. I come down on the "no torture and waterboarding is torture" side of the debate
but am also just eager for some competence and professional experience in key positions.
That these positions may be mutually
exclusive says a great deal about our current situation. Again, thank you, for your opinions and information.
A torturer is a torturer, no matter how one try to glaze it, or sugar coat it. If one is against torture, or the fancy name for
it EIT, one should come out and say it like it is. This lady is accused of torturing captives ( enemy combatant) that can't and
will not go away unless she come clean.
At the end of the day that don't matter, since as a policy, and base on your own statement,
this country's government will prosecut and punish for liking of torture but not torture and tortures. And, furthermore, is not
even willing to do away with it, per it's elected president. Trying to show a clean, moral, democracy on the hilltop image, is
a BS and a joke.
"... Haspel is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy. ..."
"... In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President. This has been the case in the US since Kennedy. ..."
"... Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway. ..."
"If Trump were not in on the schemes he would just fire his underlings!"
This sentiment indicates a failure to understand the power dynamics at play here. Haspel
is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an
oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to
serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.
In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President.
This has been the case in the US since Kennedy.
Trump cannot fire Haspel or Pompeo. They can fire him, though, and with a sniper's bullet
if they want.
Unfortunately for the oligarchy, that would cause additional complications at a time when
they have lots of tricky and inexplicably unstable (for them) operations ongoing, which is
why they are just steering Trump around instead of replacing him. And Trump is willfully
cooperating, even if they are not filling him in on the plans.
Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and
Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script
then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway.
"... The Steele dossier is British, Orbis intelligence = British, Institute for statecraft / Integrity Initiative =
British, Skripal defection. Location, evidence, statements = British, the list goes on and on. ..."
"... The UK's propaganda machine rivals and even surpasses Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. ..."
The Steele dossier is British, Orbis intelligence = British, Institute for statecraft / Integrity Initiative = British,
Skripal defection. Location, evidence, statements = British, the list goes on and on.
You'd think someone might have noticed something of a trend by now.
They just don't bother anymore, the level of double black psy-ops and gaslighting is a mine field of disinformation. That's what
you get when Washington - Obama, gives the green light to propagandizing their people. It's escalated, like we haven't noticed,
under Trump despite his pathetic attempts at assuring folks it's fake news.
The UK's propaganda machine rivals and even surpasses Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. I watched about 10 minutes of a
documentary about Easter Island, as an example, and it was revisionist to the nth degree. Just absolute rubbish insinuating that
white European travelers destroyed the Island. This is what British kids are now being marinated in, "He who controls the past"
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of
civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top
brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of
secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the
USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial
resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover,
the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its
director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned
into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry
Truman (1943-53) reportedly
characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five
decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists
and other public figures, according to
biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid
private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions
so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against
homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist
inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and
freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots
of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is
suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual
tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public
statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the
presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50
Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising
information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would
be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your
career". Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and
extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once
confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made
the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ.
Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ
into the White House.
However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly
anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy
pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt
led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample
evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep
State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald –
a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications
with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968.
Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace
talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize.
LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his
vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on,
and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long
coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was
classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is
possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating
in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and
subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the
people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as
some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion
as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the
media's own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one
individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not
alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not
just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the
Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government
– does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power
through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of
American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of
the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix
the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies,
as the US intelligence chiefs once again
chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American"
agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate
how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of
the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt
by the people.
This sheds a whole new light on the death of those two poor little hamsters, or was it
guinea pigs, said to be starved while the police was investigating the premises of
Skripal.
With Haspel around they might have succombed to her nasty ways of torturing.
Concerning who is pulling the strings, please forgive a repost of an interview with one
who knows. On 31 May 2017 Putin gave an interview with Le Figaro where he said:
"I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the
same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is
elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing
dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones.
These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is
what happens with every administration."
A long list of people with briefcases so far ends with Gina.
"... Therefore, both individuals were both an admission that the change in the system is needed and that the ruling regime is into life-extension by means of "whatever it takes". Once the "change" potential is exhausted, repression must take over as the principal life extension mechanism; clearly, these methods do not have a sharp start-over points in time - they overlap. ..."
"... It is an interesting connection of dots that Bloody Gina is Brennan's protégée and thus that Trump has truly stacked up his administration with former i.e. current enemies, But this only shows that Trump works for the same masters as his political enemies. Again, nothing new. ..."
Trump is like a voodoo doll into which every sh**bag sticks pins. Firstly, it is
irrelevant whether he was a swamp creature before election or was coopted into it after.
Secondly, Trump was transparently chosen to be the "agent of change" for the other half of
the US population, just as Obama before.
Therefore, both individuals were both an admission that the change in the system is needed
and that the ruling regime is into life-extension by means of "whatever it takes". Once the
"change" potential is exhausted, repression must take over as the principal life extension
mechanism; clearly, these methods do not have a sharp start-over points in time - they
overlap.
This is where we are now, Assange was the most prominent member of the real
opposition to the regime, where they try to confuse with plenty of faux opposition.
Therefore, the Assange's head had to be chopped off publicly and his slowly rotting corpse
will now be on display through "courts of justice" for the next couple of years as a warning
to the consumers of alternative media. Go back to reading the approved "journalism" or ... To
understand better one just needs to read/re-read Solzhenitsyn.
The other major ongoing life-extension activity, overlapping with repression, is the
confiscation of guns from the last remaining armed Western population (lots of leftist oxen
pulling that cart). Having too many guns amongst the population is bad for resolving personal
conflicts peacefully, but it is even worse for the abusive, exploitative regime. Thus, taking
the guns away is doing the right thing for a totally wrong reason.
It is an interesting connection of dots that Bloody Gina is Brennan's
protégée and thus that Trump has truly stacked up his administration with
former i.e. current enemies, But this only shows that Trump works for the same masters as his
political enemies. Again, nothing new.
Therefore, where is a Western Solzhenitsyn to document artistically what transpires in a
society deeply in debt and in social & moral decline?
You're right. I see people like Robert Kagan's opinions being respectfully asked on foreign affairs, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams
being hired to direct our foreign policy.
The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and
flourishing careers. Now they're angling for war with Iran.
It's preposterous and sickening. And it can't be allowed to stand, so you can't just stand off and say you're "wrecked". Keep
fighting, as you're doing. I will fight it until I can't fight anymore.
Fact-bedeviled JohnT: “McCain was a problem for this nation? Sweet Jesus! There quite simply is no rational adult on the planet
who buys that nonsense.”
McCain had close ties to the military-industrial complex. He was a backer of post-Cold War NATO. He was a neoconservative darling.
He never heard of a dictator that he didn’t want to depose with boots on the ground, with the possible exception of various Saudi
dictators (the oil-weaponry-torture nexus). He promoted pseudo-accountability of government in campaign finance but blocked accountability
for the Pentagon and State Department when he co-chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs with John
Kerry.
And, perhaps partly because of the head trauma and/or emotional wounds he suffered at the hands of Chinese-backed Commies,
it’s plausible to think he was regarded by the willy-nilly plotters of the deep state as a manipulable, and thus useful, conduit
of domestic subversion via the bogus Steele dossier.
Unfortunately, the episode that most defines McCain’s life is the very last one–his being a pawn of M-16 in the the deep state’s
years-long attempt to derail the presidency of Donald Trump.
Measuring success means determining goals. The goals of most wars is to enrich the people in charge. So, by this metric, the war
was a success. The rest of it is just props and propaganda.
“Pyrrhic Victory” look it up the Roman Empire Won but lost if the US is invaded and the government does not defend it I would
like to start my own defense: But the knee jerk politics that stirs America’s cannon fodder citizens is a painful reminder of
a history of jingoist lies where at times some left and right agree at least for a short moment before the rich and powerful push
their weight to have their way.
If All politics is relative Right wingers are the the left of what? Nuclear destruction? or Slavery?
My goodness! I am also a veteran, but of the Vietnam war, and my father was a career officer from 1939-1961 as a paratrooper first,
and later as an intelligence officer. He argued vigorously against our Vietnam involvement, and was cashiered for his intellectual
honesty. A combat veteran’s views are meaningless when the political winds are blowing.
Simply put, we have killed thousands of our kids in service of the colonial empires left to us by the British and the French
after WWII. More practice at incompetent strategies and tactics does not make us more competent–it merely extends the blunders
and pain; viz the French for two CENTURIES against the Britsh during the battles over Normandy while the Planagenet kings worked
to hold their viking-won inheritance.
At least then, kings risked their own lives. Generals fight because the LIKE it…a lot. Prior failures are only practice to
the, regardless of the cost in lives of the kids we tried to raise well, and who were slaughtered for no gain.
We don’t need the empire, and we certainly shouldn’t fight for the corrupt businessmen who have profited from the never-ending
conflicts. Let’s spend those trillions at home, so long as we also police our government to keep both Democrat and Republican
politicians from feathering their own nests. Term limits and prosecutions will help us, but only if we are vigilant. Wars distract
our attention while corruption is rampant at home.
Thanks, I appreciate this article.
I’ll make two points, my own opinion:
it’s the same story as Vietnam, the bull about how the politicians or anti-war demonstrators tied the military ‘hand,’ blah, blah.
Nonsense. Invading a nation and slaughtering people in their towns, houses…gee…what’s wrong with that, eh?
The average American has a primitive mind when it comes to such matters.
Second point I have, is that both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Trump should be dragged to a world court, given a fair trial
and locked up for life with hard labor… oh, and Cheney too,for all those families, in half a dozen nations, especially the children
overseas that suffered/died from these creeps.
And, the families of dead or maimed American troops should be apologized to and compensation paid by several million dollars to
each.
The people I named above make me sick, because I have feelings and a conscience. Can you dig?
Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it.
Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain.
America’s wars are prosecuted by a military that includes Christians. They seldom question the killing their country orders
them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. Is that a safe assumption for them to make? German
Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed,
including the chaplains. (The Southern Baptist Convention declared the invasion of Iraq a just war in 2003.) These wars need to
be assessed by Just War criteria. Christian soldiers need to know when to exercise selective conscientious objection, for it is
better to go to prison than to kill without God’s approval. If Just War theory is irrelevant, the default response is Christian
Pacifism.
“Iraq Wrecked” a lot of innocent people. Millions are dead, cities reduced to rubble, homes and businesses destroyed and it was
all a damned lie. And the perpetrators are Free.
Now there is sectarian violence too, where once there was a semblance of harmony amongst various denominations. See article link
below.
“Are The Christians Slaughtered in The Middle East Victims of the Actions of Western War Criminals and Their Terrorist Supporting
NATO ‘Allies’”?
We are a globalist open borders and mass immigration nation. We stand for nothing. To serve in this nation’s military is very
stupid. You aren’t defending anything. You are just a tool of globalism. Again, we don’t secure our borders. That’s a very big
give away to what’s going on.
If our nation’s military really was an American military concerned with our security we would have secured our border after 9/11,
reduced all immigration, deported ALL muslims, and that’s it. Just secure the borders and expel Muslims! That’s all we needed
to do.
Instead we killed so many people and imported many many more Muslims! And we call this compassion. Its insane.
Maybe if Talibans get back in power they will destroy the opium. You know, like they did when they were first in power…. It seems
that wherever Americans get involved, drugs follow…
“Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very
structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In Eisenhower’s televised farewell address January 17, 1961.
Rational thought would lead one to believe such words from a fellow with his credentials would have had a useful effect. But it
didn’t. In point of fact, in the likes of Eric Prince and his supporters the notion of war as a profit center is quite literally
a family affair.
The military-industrial complex couldn’t accomplish this all by its lonesome self. The deep state was doing its thing. The two
things overlap but aren’t the same. The deep state is not only or mainly about business profits, but about power. Power in the
world means empire, which requires a military-industrial complex but is not reducible to it.
We now have a rare opportunity to unveil the workings of the deep state, but it will require a special counsel, and a lengthy
written report, on the doings in the 2016 election of the FBI (Comey, Strzok, et. al.), and collaterally the CIA and DIA (Brennan
and Clapper). Also the British government (M-16), John McCain, and maybe Bush and Obama judges on the FISA courts.
"... The U.S. alone expelled 60 Russian officials. Trump was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year ago the Washington Post described the scene: ..."
"... Today the New York Times portraits Gina Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position. They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its own purpose: ..."
"... Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives. ..."
"... Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option. ..."
"... If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked. ..."
"... The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to manipulate him: ..."
"... The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own policies. ..."
"... The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma all agency owned men. ..."
"... The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead. ..."
"... It is interesting to see that nations that have traditionally been pro-American feel that the threat posed by American power is growing. ..."
"... Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter. ..."
"... Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn, completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold for their putative boss. ..."
"... Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War. ..."
"... after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the msm will not be talking about integrity initiative.. ..."
"... once Teresa May has spoken in Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative version of the truth is possible. ..."
"... Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger one to blame the Russians. ..."
"... The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about both. ..."
"... Haspel will not be fired. ..."
"... It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). .. ..."
"... The actors in government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. ..."
An ass kissing portrait of Gina Haspel,
torture
queen and director of the CIA, reveals that she lied to Trump to push for more
aggression against Russia.
In March 2018 the British government asserted, without providing any evidence, that the
alleged 'Novichok' poisoning of Sergej and Yulia Skripal was the fault of Russia. It urged
its allies to expel Russian officials from their countries.
The U.S. alone expelled
60 Russian officials. Trump
was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year
ago the Washington Post described the scene:
President Trump seemed distracted in March as his aides briefed him at his Mar-a-Lago
resort on the administration's plan to expel 60 Russian diplomats and suspected spies.
The United States, they explained, would be ousting roughly the same number of
Russians as its European allies -- part of a coordinated move to punish Moscow for the
poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil.
"We'll match their numbers," Trump instructed, according to a senior administration
official. "We're not taking the lead. We're matching."
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials
said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian
officials -- far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on.
The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely
equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the
media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia.
The expulsion marked a turn in the Trump administration's relation with Russia:
The incident reflects a tension at the core of the Trump administration's increasingly
hard-nosed stance on Russia: The president instinctually opposes many of the punitive
measures pushed by his Cabinet that have crippled his ability to forge a close
relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The past month, in particular, has marked a major turning point in the
administration's stance, according to senior administration officials. There have been
mass expulsions of Russian diplomats, sanctions on oligarchs that have bled billions of
dollars from Russia's already weak economy and, for the first time, a presidential tweet
that criticized Putin by name for backing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Today the New York Timesportraits Gina
Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position.
They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her
shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its
own purpose:
Last March, top national security officials gathered inside the White House to discuss
with Mr. Trump how to respond to the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal,
the former Russian intelligence agent.
London was pushing for the White House to expel dozens of suspected Russian
operatives, but Mr. Trump was skeptical. ... During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump.
She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told
the president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not
the only victims of Russia's attack.
Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals.
She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently
killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but
pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the
pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he
embraced the strong option.
The Skripal case was widely covered and we
followed it diligently (scroll down). There were no reports of any children affected by
'Novichok' nor were their any reports of dead ducks. In the official storyline the
Skripals, before visiting a restaurant,
fed bread to ducks at a pond in the Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury.
They also
gave duck-bread to three children to do the same. The children were examined and their
blood was tested.
No
poison was found and none of them fell ill . No duck died. (The duck feeding episode
also disproves
the claim that the Skripals were poisoned by touching a door handle.)
If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British
government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced
policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked.
The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were
fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to
manipulate him:
The outcome was an example, officials said, of how Ms. Haspel is one of the few people
who can get Mr. Trump to shift position based on new information.
Co-workers and friends of Ms. Haspel push back on any notion that she is manipulating
the president. She is instead trying to get him to listen and to protect the agency,
according to former intelligence officials who know her.
The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own
policies. Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game:
Ms. Haspel won the trust of Mr. Pompeo, however, and has stayed loyal to him. As a
result, Mr. Trump sees Ms. Haspel as an extension of Mr. Pompeo, a view that has helped
protect her, current and former intelligence officials said.
Posted by b on April 16, 2019 at 08:37 AM |
Permalink
I don't see how it's possible to manipulate someone (and especially the US president) into
doing something they don't want to do with lies like the ones described here. On the
contrary presidents, CEOs etc. favor the staffers who tell them the kind of lies they want
to hear in order to reinforce what they wanted to do in the first place.
I've never seen any reason to alter my first position on Trump, that like any other
president he does what he wants to do.
The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create
trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life
with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma
all agency owned men.
The joke 7in the final scene Robert Redford tells See Eye A man Cliff Robertson that he
gave all the evidence to the NY Times. What a joke. The NY Times and the Wash Post are the
mouthpieces for the SEE Eye A. The AP news sources most of their stories from those two
papers and other lackey See Eye A newspapers.
One final criticism in moon's story. The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the
President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead.
After this, she got the top job, so what is the real lesson here? Sociopathic liars get
promoted....or you can tell the truth, try to be honorable and fade into obscurity.. In a nest of psychos, you have to really be depraved to become the top psycho...
Nuke it for orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
Backing up Russ's point, when will you realise the "buck stops" on Trump's desk for any
and all departments he oversees, which are run by his appointees? Trump is dedicated to
creating a neoconservative foreign policy melded to a neoliberal economic policy favouring
his corporate fascist sponsors. Recently, you've been all over the Assange indictment,
Trump's relationship with Nuttyahoo and the related rollback of JCPOA. Is this what you
want to see continued into a second term?
There is much evidence to show Trump and the GOP working steadily towards a "democracy"
where Congress is castrated (one might say the system castrates Congress anyway), opposing
candidates are jailed, opposition votes are suppressed and the media is weakened to the
point where no one can tell the difference.
They haven't got there quite yet but once the judiciary is controlled by GOP ideologues
it's game over. And McConnell is dedicating his life to make that the reality ASAP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch we are dedicated to knocking down any and all potential
opposition to this GOP hostile takeover for some reason I've yet to fathom.
Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire
Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game[Pompeo]
Hopefully yes to all four propositions. Why am I sceptical though (except conceivably
the first)?
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. He's the first POTUS in decades I
believe to not even pretend to like dogs by having an official White House dog and every
policy his Administration can take against animals, they have taken. I'm not even sure I
buy the spin that he cared about dead kids either. And NYT readers know this about him, so
I don't understand what the point of peddling this fiction is other than to paint Torture
Queen in some kind of good light (and we KNOW that she certainly doesn't care about dead
anything).
another example of trump's stupidity and pathological inability to think for himself. he
gets his views from fox and his policy from bolton. his equally vapid daughter and kushner
whine to him about sooper sad syria pictures they saw in a sponsored link while googling
for new tmz gossip.
even worse that this is the twat in charge of one of russiagate's main instigating "deep
state" agencies. he spent the entirety of his presidency railing against their various lies
then takes this wankery at face value. it's just like the "chinese soldiers in venezuela";
if those pictures were legit they'd have been splattered over every front page and
permanently attached to screeching cnn and msnbc segments demanding trump "finally get
tough" on "putin's russia".
my only surprise is that she didn't tell him about british babies ripped from incubators
and dipped in anthrax powder.
the nyt shilling for a soCIopAth? not that surprising.
The consultant in emergency medicine at Salisbury hospital wrote to The Times, shortly
after the Skripal incident. His choice of words was odd, and some have said they indicate
no novichok poisoning occurred. Leaving that to one side, his letter certainly puts paid to
the idea that more than three people (the Skripals and the policeman, DCI Bailey) were
poisoned.
https://www.onaquietday.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DocSaysNoNerveAgentInSalisbury.jpg
" the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal, "
There was no attack on the Skripals. or on anyone else.
The Russophobia in whose context it falls, is of a higher order, in which a fabricated
narrative of a Skripal-like attack had an important function.
The Skripals were perfectly happy to lend their name to the fabrication, and are living
happily, probably in New Zealand.
The Daily Beast article that b linked to describes how many serious, well-informed people
felt that Haspel was unsuitable to lead the CIA. Even more strange and troubling was that Haspel was supported by Trump's nemesis,
John Brennan.
Despite all that, MAGA Trump still nominated her. Any notion that Trump is at odds with, or "manipulated" by, Haspel, Bolton, or Pompeo is
just propaganda. We've seen such reporting before (esp. wrt Bolton) and Trump has taken no
action.
I see that Trump derangement is alive and well here at MoA. Commenters talk as if Trump is
the first president stupid enough to be manipulated by the security agencies and shadow
government sometimes referred to as a "deep state". People don't have to be historians or
look back to Rome, just read the books about how the great general who "won WWII" was used
by the oligarchy which had full control of US foreign policy throughout Eisenhower's term in
office.
Works produced after WWII, C. Wright Mills, The Power elite was written in 1956,The
Brothers and The Divil's Chessboard each about the Dulles Brothers and how they operated US
foreign policy for the interests of the oligarchy, and the work Peter Phillips, GIANTS: The
Global Power Elite and the work of David Rothkopf which thoroughly describes the feudal
system under which the Western cultures are ruled.
The US government is a pantomime it is a show it has no power.
How many here can honestly say they understand that the US dollar itself and the ENTIRE
GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM is privately owned. Why do you think the "banks were bailed out"?
because the banks were in power not the government. The US is 22 trillion in debt - the
oligarchy is the creditor - take over the US gov. and you have a powerless pile of
debt.
Around 6,000 people control 85% of global assets until that changes nothing will change.
The oligarchy won virtually all the mines and control the price of all basic commodities
necessary for modern life, the internet, oil of course and more.
What is failing and what has failed over and over for 500 years is Western Civilization and
its three "great religions" which preach obedience, oppression, domination by a one god
suffocating mythology.
But the oligarchy doesn't own just the basic commodities, it owns the religions and it owns
the drugs and all illegal trade as well.
Western "civilization" is really nothing more than one vast feudal kingdom, with royal
courts in DC, Tel Aviv and Ryiadh. Wheather there is a god or not, religion is made of
flesh and blood not miracles. No Rabbi or Priest or Imam claims visitations by god to
instruct them on doctrine - they are flesh and blood and they want power so they behave
like sycophants to the money they need to expand their power...all for the good souls under
their care.
Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired
to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more
likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter.
What can we expect from a tv personality who became a US president? A man who ran with an
advertisement worthy of a business man like him, "Make America Great Again." How does he go
about doing it? Giving more money to the military industrial-Congressional complex, even
though we are really flat broke. Using aggressive tactics used by Wall Street in hostile
company takeovers to really intimidate other nations. And hire and place those he really
agrees with in important positions who really reflect his true feelings. I'm sure when he
spoke with Haspel before offering her the job, he brought up the topic of torture and
agreed with her on its use on terrorists.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that they conspired not to stop Trump but
to further speculation of Trump's "collusion" with Russia (what would later be known as
Russiagate). The "collusion" and "Russia meddled" accusations are what fueled the new
McCarthyism.
I'll just add to Jerry's comment at #3 that the final line in the movie "Day of the Condor"
is something like "But will they print it?" which really spoke to the message of the film
in its entirety. The condor being an endangered bird for whom the hero is named, and the
beginning outrage being the brutal murder of book lovers researching useable plot details
for the 'company'makes this message current and applicable to what we see in the Skripal
case. And instead of librarians, we now have online commenters, a doughty breed, and we
have Assange.
Instead of 'Will they print it?' I am wondering 'Will they make another movie about
it?'
Remind me, where is Yulia Skripal these days? Well and truly 'disappeared' it seems. The
mask is off. the snarling face of the beast is there for all to see.
What a total waste of an article discussing a story published in NYT or WaPo.
b, the World has divided itself into those who consume alternative media such as this
and stupidos who consume MSM. There is nothing in-between that you are attempting to
discuss and dissect here. NYT = cognitive value zero.
Fake News not worth one millisecond of our time, not even to decode what the regime
wants us to know, we know all that already. Personally, I am only interested in the new
methods of domestic repression, what is next after the warning of Assange arrest, future
rendition and torture. The Deep Stare appears to be coming out into open, will it soon get
rid of the whole faux democracy construct and just use iron fist to rule? It already impose
its will as the rule of law. All of the Western block is heading in this direction.
Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn,
completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its
contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold
for their putative boss.
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. Mataman | Apr 16, 2019 9:45:30 AM
This assumes that Trump would primarily care about the ducks (and children) when he
approved a massive expulsion, rather that his image and "ah, in that case it would look bad
if we do not do something really decisive".
In any case, I was thinking why NYT would disclose something like that. The point is
that readers of Craig Murray (not so few, but mostly Scottish nationalists who are also
leftist and have scant possibilities and/or inclination to vote in USA) and MoonOfAlabama
would quickly catch a dead fish here, but 99.9% of the public is blissfully unaware of any
incongruences in the "established" Skripal narrative.
BTW, it is possible that the journalist who scribbled fresh yarn obtained from CIA did it
earnestly. Journalists do not necessarily follow stories that they cover -- scribbling from
given notes does not require overtaxing the precious attention span that can be devoted to
more vital cognitive challenges. I am lazy to find the link, but while checking for news on
Venezuela, I stumbled on a piece from Express, a British tabloid, where Guaido was named a
"figurehead of the oposition" supported by "450 Western countries". My interpretation was
that more literate journalists were moved for to more compelling stories as Venezuela went
to the back burner.
Yes, indeed, the Skripal Affair is one of the obviously contrived stunts we've seen.
Just outrageous in its execution. On a par with the US having a man who didn't even run for president of Venezuela swear
himself in and then pressure everyone to accept him as president.
Interesting, I had no idea Gina Haspel - aka, The Queen of Blood - played a role. I
thought it was all original dirty work by Britain's Theresa May. Boy, I hope people are through with the false notion that if women just get into
leadership, the world will become a better gentler place.
Macron was (afaik?) the only EU 'leader' who was quoted in the MSM as bruiting re. the
Skripal affair a message like:
.. no culpability in the part of Russia has been evidenced .. for now...
I suppose he was enjoined to shut his gob right quick (have been reading about brexit so
brit eng) as nothing more in that line was heard.
Hooo, the EU expelled a lot of Russ. diplomats, obeying the USuk, which certainly
created some major upsets on the ground.
Some were expelled, went into other jobs, other places, but then others arrived, etc.
The MSM has not made any counts - lists - of names numbers - etc. of R diplos on the job -
anywhere. As some left and then others arrived.
Once more, this was mostly a symbolic move, if extremely nasty, insulting, and
disruptive.
Theresa May's speech re. Novichok, Independent 14 March 2018:
.. on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability,
combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including
against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK
Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and
despicable act. ..
imo, the media has, once again, simply taken its lead from trump himself, & started
making things up completely. & you're absolutely correct in pointing out that, much
like trump's true believers, the msm's targeted audience never even notices...
Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY
Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of
which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power
sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter
hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War.
after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the
msm will not be talking about integrity initiative..
what i didn't know is what @18 lysias pointed out.."Haspel was CIA station chief in
London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In
her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it.
That Brennan supported her argues for the latter." ditto jr's speculation @20 too...
so gaspel shows trump some cheap propaganda that she got from who??
my main problem with b's post - i tend to see it like kiza @23) is maintaining the idea
trump isn't in on all of this.. the thought trump is being duped by his underlings.. if he
was and it mattered, he would get rid of them.. the fact he doesn't says to me, he is in on
it - get russia, being the 24/7 game plan of the west here still..
Please stop listening to idiot libertarians and their "US is flat broke" meme.
The reality is that: so long as Americans transact in dollars, the United States government
can tax anytime it feels like by issuing new dollars via the Fed.
Equally, so long as 60% of the world's trade is conducted in dollars, this is tens to
hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxation surface area.
The MMT people - I don't agree 100% with everything they say, but they do understand the
actual operation of fiat currency.
The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion to
hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that currency
devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy.
I doubt Haspel knew the ducks were fake - she was probably just given stuff to pass up
the chain.
It is a lot like John Kerry who was shown convincing satellite data of the BUK launch that
hit MH17 - but no one could be bothered to pass on even the launch site coordinates to the
JIT. I'm sure this stuff goes on all the time, and of course, once Teresa May has spoken in
Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative
version of the truth is possible.
Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to
get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might
have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger
one to blame the Russians.
The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both
originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about
both.
"The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion
to hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that
currency devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy."
The useful idiocy is most surprising among US farmers. In the 19th century they broadly
understood that fiat money was good for chronic low-wealth debtors like themselves, while
hard money was bad and a gold standard lethal. This was the basis of the Populist movement.
Nothing has changed financially, but today's farmers, and the low-wealth debtor class in
general, seem more likely to be goldbuggers than to have any knowledge of economics or of
their own political history.
karlof1 36
Once a faction becomes submerged in the Mammon theocracy and becomes nothing but
mercenary nihilists, thinking is no longer necessary or desirable, except to come up with
attractive, pseudo-plausible lies.
This certainly characterizes "the right" (including liberals), but they have no monopoly
on it. By now "the left" is nearly as thoughtless and instrumental on behalf of Mammon,
except to the extent that a few people are starting to really grapple with what it means to
have an intrinsically ecocidal and therefore suicidal civilization. That's really the only
thought frontier left, all else has been engulfed in Mammon, productionism, scientism and
technocracy.
I remind that Mussolini wasted his legislature.. 1 balmy after noon @ a roadside spot.
it made his government stronger.?
It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no
one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes
anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). ..
The actors in
government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the
rest of the world. Everyone in the government is covering for the behaviors of someone else
in government, the MSM has raised the price of a pencil to just under a million, stock
markets are bags of hot thin air, and everyone in side and outside of the centers of power
at all levels of government have lied thru their teeth so much that their teeth are melting
from the continuous flow of hot deceitful air.
Corrupt is now the only qualification for
political office, trigger happy screwball the only qualification for the police and the
military and . making progress is like trying to conduct a panty raid at a female nudist
camp.
John Anthony La Pietra , Apr 16, 2019 3:47:03 PM |
link
"... In SUPERCLASS we learn that this class of people actually own and control the three largest Western religions and many of the secondary ones - they all preach obedience to authority as paramount. They also own the drugs trade around the world. 95% of the world supply of opium comes out of Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the Elite through use of the US military. ..."
"... And just as an aside to any historians out there, Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-first Century shows how a critical mass of capital was had formed 500 years ago and has grown consistently at a rate greater than the general economy ever sense. He showed that before, during and after the French Revolution and later the US "revolution" the core capital of the west made profits. These revolutions, like government today, were pantomimes whilew the real power profited from the slaughter. The Elite prosper from war that is why there has been continual war and slaughter on their behalf sinse August 6, 1945. The nuclear weapons belong to them. ..."
You ask a question about European political class's perception and defence of European
interests that is as perplexing here as it is in regard to Libya and Syria, to name just
these. There was at least some coherent defence of international law and principle during
Bush II's lead up to the Iraq war, but Europe's defence of law and Europe's common interests
seem to have ceased at some point since then.
Because, like the US European government is a tool of the Global Power Elite, it is
nothing more than pantomime. The West is fully owned and operated by the global elite.
In books going back to C Wright Mills' The Power Elite in 1956 to SUPERCLASS by David
Rothkopf, and GIANTS: The Global Power Elite by Peter Phillips clearly outline just how
powerful the Global Elites really are.
In SUPERCLASS we learn that this class of people actually own and control the three
largest Western religions and many of the secondary ones - they all preach obedience to
authority as paramount. They also own the drugs trade around the world. 95% of the world
supply of opium comes out of Afghanistan under the watchful eye of the Elite through use of
the US military.
There is one and only one Western empire - that of the Global Elites.
85% of the valuable assets in the world are controlled by the Global Elites.
There is no offsetting force against them, there simply does not exist today a force
capable of challenging their ownership of the world.
And just as an aside to any historians out there, Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the
Twenty-first Century shows how a critical mass of capital was had formed 500 years ago and
has grown consistently at a rate greater than the general economy ever sense. He showed that
before, during and after the French Revolution and later the US "revolution" the core capital
of the west made profits. These revolutions, like government today, were pantomimes whilew
the real power profited from the slaughter. The Elite prosper from war that is why there has
been continual war and slaughter on their behalf sinse August 6, 1945. The nuclear weapons
belong to them.
-- The gang is also very stupid. From Halper-the-spy and his incompetent handler Brennan
to the obnoxious zionists of Ledeen kind they, the members of the "gang", show incompetence
and the self-endangering and stupid amorality.
By destroying whatever decent has been in the western civilization so far, and by
spreading the rot around, the gangsters have been destroying their children's &
grandchildren's future.
April 2, 2019 The CIA Takeover of America in the 1960s Is the Story of Our Times. The Killing of the Kennedys and Today's
New Cold War
'We're all puppets,' the suspect [Sirhan Sirhan] replied, with more truth than he could have understood at that moment."
– Lisa Pease, quoting from the LAPD questioning of Sirhan
March 19, 2017 The CIA's 60-Year History of Fake News How the Deep State Corrupted Many American Writers
Whitney's new book, "Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers," explores how the CIA influenced acclaimed
writers and publications during the Cold War to produce subtly anti-communist material.
During the interview, Scheer and Whitney
discuss these manipulations and how the CIA controlled major news agencies and respected literary publications (such as the
Paris Review).
Unlike invasive weeds, however, modem Governments - the more effective of them - have managed to develop offensive systems
that have destroyed nearly all of the traditional, reformative feedback loops that were used to keep the more outrageous
negaciprocal Governments in check in the past.
For example, the very purpose of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution - expressed quite specifically by its framers
as the People’s God-given right to bear arms - was to allow “the People” to revolt against tyranny. The American Revolution
itself wasn’t an act of repulsing a foreign power. It was a war by the British colonies against the very Government which was
legally entitled to lay claim to its territory.
There is absolutely nothing about the American Revolution, celebrated every year in the U.S. with the Day of Independence
(July 4), which could not be compared to U.S. citizens rising up today and dethroning the crime syndicate that currently resides
in Washington D.C.1
Will such an occurrence ever happen?
It will never occur . . . regardless of which new, demonic, uncharted levels of Extreme Negaprocity the U.S. descends into.
Quite apart from the stunning successes of the U.S. Government’s relentless gullibility tests, there is the issue of a complete
disparity in both defensive and offensive capability between the Government and the governed, between the privileged and the non
1%.
In earlier times a Government didn’t think in terms of superior military technology. It thought about advantages in terms of
“numbers” or resources. For many hundreds of years, European Governments had able fighters; so did the people. Governments had
military hardware; spears, shields, horses, bows, arrows, and other low-tech weaponry. So did the people. Governments were far
more worried about inciting citizen unrest.
Washington has the luxury of not caring whatsoever about this. Today the disparity between the tools that a people can use to
protect itself against an excessively tyrannical Government and the tools that a Government can use to quell even mild
dissension have never been greater.
Chapter 3: It Is the Nature Of Governments, As Creatures Of Extreme Negaprocity, To Create
And Nurture Systems Of "Intermediaryism"' That Extend And Preserve Their Negaciprocal
Activities
When Jerry Mander wrote The Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television in 1975, his
first argument was that television was creating an "intermediary" world where people were
divorced from their own experience of reality.2 Having been near the pinnacle of the television
advertising business for years, he could see, first-hand, how television allowed vested
interests to create realities that distorted, subverted, and misdirected not only people's own
personal interests, but how it disconnected them from any meaningful interaction with the
natural world around them.
He was able to see how television was being used to program people in insidious ways.
Television, however, is only one artifact of intermediary subversion that saturates the
landscape of modern life. The arguments that Mander made could well be applied to a host of
technological gadgets and devices...
... ... ....
as i proceeded into aduitnood, i was sucked into a dcvolutionary whirlwind of college life, military service, business, the
creation of three manufacturing companies, two failed marriages, two stints in U.S. federal prison related to my work as an
herbalist, and then the realization that I could never safely return to the country of my birth - no matter what I said or did -
and that 1 must live out the remainder of my days in exile.
There is no place left for me in this world.
With more than seven billion people currently living on the planet, it would be absurd to suggest that we have seen the
complete collapse of human habitat. It’s a work in progress. (You always see the greatest population bloom just before overshoot
and die-out. Ask any evolutionary biologist.)
What we have now is only the complete collapse of suitable habitat for fully functioning human beings who are spiritually
aware. I am, as author Kurt Vonnegut concluded in his final work, “a Man Without a Country,” who has unwittingly found himself
in the “Lunatic Asylum of the Universe.”1 And I suspect that many of the people who will choose to read this book feel the same
way. Nonetheless, it is yet a better exile that we seek. Once
again, if the fundamental principle of life as expressed in the Chinese I Ching is true - that “when situations proceed beyond
their extremes, they alternate to their opposites,”4 then our journey home can only be filled with light, love, and an
inexpressible joy that we cannot - even now - imagine. No one may know the timing, but our way must be clear, our minds calm,
and our spirits aware. For "only the bright and the gentle can overcome
the dark and unyielding.”5
It wasn't Colby, but William Casey. "We'll know our disinformation program is complete
when everything the American public believes is false." William Casey, Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, 1981 – 1987.
32:54 ..."I'm an elitist and
you're stupid which gives me a right to rule over you".... ... I'm paraphrasing here Darwin's
theory of evolution goes against the laws of thermodynamics in that you cannot create order
out of chaos, chaos creates chaos. This man is brilliant I'm getting his book!
Here in Portugal people almost beat me when i talk about this things, i feel alone, nobody
see the Deep state pulling the strings throught the Eurpean Union, i'm hiting my my to the
wall everyday seeing some shiit hapening in this country
"... On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions ..."
"... John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy despite his explicit campaign promises to do so. ..."
"... More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of Americans is totally unacceptable. ..."
On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they
disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC
to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions. These three entities have been linked to various kinds of corruption
including sanctions evasion for Iran, money laundering on behalf of drug cartels, provision of banking services to backers of Islamic
terror organizations and controversial donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The financial ties between Bolton and these institutions highlight serious ethical concerns about his suitability for the position
of National Security Advisor.
I. Victor Pinchuk Foundation
John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including
one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy
despite his explicit campaign promises to do so.
The Victor Pinchuk Foundation was blasted in 2016 over their donation of $10 to $25 million to the
Clinton Foundation between 1994 and 2005. The donations lead to accusations
of influence peddling after it emerged that Victor Pinchuk had been invited
to Hillary Clinton's home during the final year of her tenure as Secretary of State.
Even more damning was Victor Pinchuk's participation in activities that constituted evasions of sanctions levied against Iran
by the American government. A 2015 exposé by Newsweek highlighted the fact
that Pinchuk owned Interpipe Group, a Cyprus-incorporated manufacturer of seamless pipes used in oil and gas sectors. A now-removed
statement on Interpipe's website showed that they
were doing business in Iran despite US sanctions aimed to prevent this kind of activity.
Why John Bolton, a notorious war hawk who has called for a hardline approach to Iran, would take money from an entity who was
evading sanctions against the country is not clear. It does however, raise serious questions about whether or not Bolton should
be employed by Donald Trump, who made attacks on the Clinton Foundation's questionable donations a cornerstone of his 2016 campaign.
II. HSBC Group
British bank HSBC paid Bolton $46,500 in June and August 2017 to speak at two gatherings of hedge fund managers and investors.
HSBC is notorious for its extensive ties to criminal and terror organizations for whom it has provided illegal financial services.
Clients that HSBC have laundered money for include Colombian drug traffickers
and Mexican cartels who have terrorized the country and recently
raised murder rates to the highest levels in Mexico's history . They have
also offered banking services to Chinese individuals
who sourced chemicals and other materials used by cartels to produce methamphetamine and heroin that is then sold in the United
States. China's Triads have helped open financial markets in Asia to cartels
seeking to launder their profits derived from the drug trade.
In 2012, HSBC was blasted by the US Senate for for allowing money from
Russian and Latin American criminal networks as well as Middle Eastern terror groups to enter the US. The banking group ultimately
agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine for this misconduct as well as their involvement
in processing sanctions-prohibited transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.
Some of the terror groups assisted by HSBC include the notorious Al Qaeda. During the 2012 scrutiny of HSBC, outlets such as
Le Monde , Business Insider
and the New York Times revealed that HSBC had maintained ties to Saudi
Arabia's Al Rajhi Bank. Al Rajhi Bank was one of Osama Bin Ladin's "Golden Chain" of Al Qaeda's most important financiers. Even
though HSBC's own internal compliance offices asked for the bank to terminate their relationship with Al Rajhi Bank, it continued
until 2010.
More recently in 2018, reports have claimed that HSBC was used for illicit
transactions between Iran and Chinese technology conglomerate Huawei. The US is currently seeking to extradite Huawei CFO Meng
Wanzhou after bringing charges against Huawei related to sanctions evasion
and theft of intellectual property. The company has been described as a "backdoor" for elements of the Chinese government by certain
US authorities.
Bolton's decision to accept money from HSBC given their well-known reputation is deeply hypocritical. HSBC's connection to
terror organizations such as Al Qaeda in particular is damning for Bolton due to the fact that he formerly served as the chairman
of the Gatestone Institute , a New York-based advocacy group that purports
to oppose terrorism. These financial ties are absolutely improper for an individual acting as National Security Advisor.
III. Deutsche Bank
John Bolton accepted $72,000 from German Deutsche Bank to speak at an event in May 2017.
Deutsche Bank has for decades engaged in questionable behavior. During World War II, they
provided financial services to the Nazi Gestapo and financed construction
of the infamous Auschwitz as well as an adjacent plant for chemical company IG Farben.
Like HSBC, Deutsche Bank has provided illicit services to international criminal organizations. In 2014
court filings showed that Deutsche Bank, Citi and Bank of America had all
acted as channels for drug money sent to Colombian security currency brokerages suspected of acting on behalf of traffickers.
In 2017, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a $630 million fine after working with
a Danish bank in Estonia to launder over $10 billion through London and
Moscow on behalf of Russian entities. The UK's financial regulatory watchdog
has said that Deutsche Bank is failing to prevent its accounts from being used to launder money, circumvent sanctions and
finance terrorism. In November 2018, Deutsche Bank's headquarters was raided
by German authorities as part of an investigation sparked by 2016 revelations in the "Panama Papers" leak from Panama's Mossack
Fonseca.
Two weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, the Bush administration signed
an executive order linking a company owned by German national Mamoun Darkazanli to Al Qaeda. In 1995,
Darkazanli co-signed the opening of a Deutsche Bank account for Mamdouh
Mahmud Salim. Salim was identified by the CIA as the chief of bin Laden's computer operations and weapons procurement. He was
ultimately arrested in Munich, extradited to the United States and
charged
with participation in the 1998 US embassy bombings.
In 2017, the Office of the New York State Comptroller opened an investigation into accounts that Deutsche Bank was operating
on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is defined by both the United States and the European
Union as a terrorist organization. It is ironic that Bolton, who is a past recipient of the "Guardian of Zion Award" would accept
money from an entity who provided services to Palestinian groups that Israel considers to be terror related.
IV. Clinton-esque Financial Ties Unbecoming To Trump Administration
Bolton's engagement in paid speeches, in some cases with well-known donors to the Clinton Foundation, paints the Trump administration
in a very bad light. Donald Trump criticized Hillary Clinton during his
2016 Presidential campaign for speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs that were
labeled by her detractors as "pay to play" behavior. John Bolton's acceptance of money from similar entities, especially the Victor
Pinchuk Foundation, are exactly the same kind of activity and are an embarrassment for a President who claims to be against corruption.
More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches
hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly
flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National
Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of
Americans is totally unacceptable.
It is embarrassing enough that Donald Trump hired Bolton in the first place. The next best remedy is to let him go as soon
as possible.
Money quote: "The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from
the get-go. This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White
House. It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler. There are clear parallels between the end stages
of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from
reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against
the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not
lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire crashes we may not be so fortunate."
Notable quotes:
"... Among interesting dates, it appears that Stefan Halper was already trying to reach out to Lokhova in January-February 2016 – a lot earlier than his approaches to Papadopoulo s and Page. This was done through Professor Christopher Andrew, co-convenor with Halper and the former MI6 had Sir Richard Dearlove of the ‘Cambridge Intelligence Seminar.’ ..."
"... Meanwhile, Lokhova has set up a blog on which she has posted a some interesting relevant material, with perhaps more to come. It is very well worth a look.(See https://www.russiagate.co.uk .) ..."
"... Of particular interest, to my mind, is the full text of her – unpublished – May 2017 interview with the ‘New York Times.’ This points us back to is the fact – of which Lokhova shows no signs of awareness – that the idea that the Western powers and the Russians might have a common interest in fighting jihadist terrorism has been absolute anathema to many key figures on both sides of the Atlantic, with Dearlove certainly among them. ..."
"... ‘AN APOLOGY: Yesterday, I compared @nytimes journalists, who smeared @GenFlynn and accused me of being a Russian spy, to cockroaches. In good conscience, I must apologize to the cockroaches for the distress caused to them for being compared to @nytimes #Russiagate hoaxers. Sorry!’ ..."
"... The centerpiece of this is a proposal submitted to the FCO in August last year by what seems to be essentially the same consortium whose existence as a government contractor has now been made public. The ‘Institute for Statecraft’ has vanished, and one consortium member, ‘Aktis Strategy’, has gone into liquidation. But other key members are the same. ..."
"... A central underlying premise is that if anyone has any doubts as to whether the ‘White Helmets’ are a benevolent humanitarian organisation, or the Russians were responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals or the shooting down of MH17, the only possible explanation is that their minds have been poisoned by disinformation. ..."
"... In fact, what is at issue an ambitious project to co-ordinate and strengthen a very large number of organisations in different countries which are committed to a relentlessly Russophobic line on everything. (The possibility that it might not be very bright to push Russia into the arms of China, the obviously rising power, does not seem to have occurred to these people – perhaps they need less ons from Sir Halford Mackinder, or indeed Niccolò Machiavelli, on ‘statecraft.’) ..."
"... The clear close integration of other cyber people from the ‘Atlantic Council’ into Orwellian ‘information operations’ sponsored by the British Government simply puts these facts into sharp relief. ..."
"... There has to be a strong possible ‘prima facie’ case that anyone in authority prepared to accept the ‘digital forensics’ from ‘CrowdStrike’ is complicit in the conspiracy against the constitution, and/or the conspiracy to cover-up that conspiracy. This certainly goes for Comey, and I think it also goes for Mueller." ..."
"... I'd recommend for reading Alexei Yurchak's "Everything Was Forever, Until It was No More: The Last Soviet Generation." Its about a class of apparatchiks and bureaucrats and hangers on who spoke this arcane, abstract dogmatic language that anyone normal had long since given up trying to understand. It had long ceased to have any relevance or attachment to the lives lived by ordinary, increasingly suffering people, who started talking to each other in practical and direct language. ..."
"... The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from the get-go. This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White House. It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler. ..."
"... There are clear parallels between the end stages of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire crashes we may not be so fortunate. ..."
"Dan, Thanks for the reference, which I will follow up. Unfortunately, although Bongino has produced a lot of extremely valuable
material, a lot of it is buried in the 'postcasts', searching through which is harder than with printed materials. It would greatly
help if there were transcripts, but of course those cost money.
I am still trying to fit the exploding mass of information which has been coming out into a coherent timeline. Part of the
problem is that there is so much appearing in so many different places. In addition to trying to think through the implications
of the information in this post and the subsequent exchanges of comments, I have been trying to make sense of evidence coming
out about the British end of the conspiracy.
An important development here has been rather well covered by Chuck Ross, in a recent ‘Daily Caller’ piece headlined ‘Cambridge
Academic Reflects On Interactions With 'Spygate’ Figure’ and one on ‘Fox’ by Catherine Herridge and Cyd Upson, entitled ‘Russian
academic linked to Flynn denies being spy, says her past contact was “used” to smear him.’ However, the evidence involved has ramifications
which they cannot be expected to understand, as yet at least.
At issue is the attempt to use the – apparently casual – encounter between Lieutenant-General Flynn and Svetlana Lokhova at a
dinner in Cambridge (U.K.) in February 2016 to smear him by, among other things, portraying her as some kind of ‘Mata Hari’ figure.
Among interesting dates, it appears that Stefan Halper was already trying to reach out to Lokhova in January-February 2016
– a lot earlier than his approaches to Papadopoulo s and Page. This was done through Professor Christopher Andrew, co-convenor with
Halper and the former MI6 had Sir Richard Dearlove of the ‘Cambridge Intelligence Seminar.’
This suggests that this was not simply a case Halper acting on his own. It also I think brings us back to the central importance
of Flynn’s visit to Moscow in December 2015.
Meanwhile, Lokhova has set up a blog on which she has posted a some interesting relevant material, with perhaps more to come.
It is very well worth a look.(See https://www.russiagate.co.uk
.)
Of particular interest, to my mind, is the full text of her – unpublished – May 2017 interview with the ‘New York Times.’ This
points us back to is the fact – of which Lokhova shows no signs of awareness – that the idea that the Western powers and the Russians
might have a common interest in fighting jihadist terrorism has been absolute anathema to many key figures on both sides of the Atlantic,
with Dearlove certainly among them.
Some of Lokhova’s comments on ‘twitter’ are extremely entertaining. An example, with which I have much sympathy:
‘AN APOLOGY: Yesterday, I compared @nytimes journalists, who smeared @GenFlynn and accused me of being a Russian spy, to
cockroaches. In good conscience, I must apologize to the cockroaches for the distress caused to them for being compared to @nytimes
#Russiagate hoaxers. Sorry!’
Meanwhile, another interesting recent ‘tweet’ comes from Eliot Higgins, of ‘Bellingcat’ fame. He is known to some skeptics as
‘the couch potato’ – perhaps he should be rechristened ‘king cockroach.’ It reads:
‘Looking forward to gettin g things rolling with the Open Information Partnership, with @bellingcat, @MDI_UK, @DFRLab, and @This_Is_Zinc
https://www.openinformation...’
There is an interesting ‘backstory’ to this. The announcement of an FCO-supported ‘Open Information Partnership of European Non-Governmental
Organisations, charities, academics, think-tanks and journalists’, supposedly to counter ‘disinformation’ from Russia, came in a
written answer from the Minister of State, Sir Alan Duncan, on 3 April.
In turn this followed the latest in a series of releases of material either leaked or hacked from the organisations calling themselves
‘Institute for Statecraft’ and ‘Integrity Initiative’ by the group calling themselves ‘Anonymous’ on 25 March.
The centerpiece of this is a proposal submitted to the FCO in August last year by what seems to be essentially the same consortium
whose existence as a government contractor has now been made public. The ‘Institute for Statecraft’ has vanished, and one consortium
member, ‘Aktis Strategy’, has gone into liquidation. But other key members are the same.
A central underlying premise is that if anyone has any doubts as to whether the ‘White Helmets’ are a benevolent humanitarian
organisation, or the Russians were responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals or the shooting down of MH17, the only possible
explanation is that their minds have been poisoned by disinformation.
An interesting paragraph reads as follows:
‘An expanded research component could generate better understanding of the drivers (psychological, sociopolitical, cultural
and environmental) of those who are susceptible to disinformation. This will allow us to map vulnerable audiences, and build scenario
planning models to test the efficiency of different activities to build resilience of those populations over time.’
They have not yet got to the point of recommending psychiatic treatment for ‘dissidents’, but these are still early days. The
‘Sovietisation’ of Western life proceeds apace.
In fact, what is at issue an ambitious project to co-ordinate and strengthen a very large number of organisations in different
countries which are committed to a relentlessly Russophobic line on everything. (The possibility that it might not be very bright
to push Russia into the arms of China, the obviously rising power, does not seem to have occurred to these people – perhaps they
need less ons from Sir Halford Mackinder, or indeed Niccolò Machiavelli, on ‘statecraft.’)
Study of the proposal hacked/leaked by ‘Anonymous’ bring out both the ‘boondoggle’ element – there is a lot of state funding available
for people happy to play these games – and also the strong transatlantic links.
A particularly significant presence, here, is the ‘DFRLab’. This is the ‘Digital Forensic Research Lab’ at the ‘Atlantic Council’,
where Eliot Higgins is a ‘nonresident senior fellow.’ The same organisation has a ‘Cyber Statecraft Initiative’ where Dmitri Alperovitch
is a ‘nonresident senior fellow.’
It cannot be repeated often enough that it is difficult to see any conceivable excuse for the FBI to fail to secure access to
the DNC servers. One would normally moreover expect that, on an issue of this sensitivity, they would have the ‘digital forensics’
done by their own people.
There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there has been
a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be devastating for that
organisation.
To rely on a contractor linked to the notoriously Russophobic ‘Atlantic Council’ is even more preposterous.
The clear close integration of other cyber people from the ‘Atlantic Council’ into Orwellian ‘information operations’ sponsored
by the British Government simply puts these facts into sharp relief.
There has to be a strong possible ‘prima facie’ case that anyone in authority prepared to accept the ‘digital forensics’ from
‘CrowdStrike’ is complicit in the conspiracy against the constitution, and/or the conspiracy to cover-up that conspiracy. This certainly
goes for Comey, and I think it also goes for Mueller."
OT but related, just watched a former naval Intelligence officer, now working for the Hoover Institute interviewed on FOX about
the Rooshins in Venezuela. Said, the 100 Russians are there to protect Maduro because he cannot trust his own army. Maduro's days
are numbered because he is toxically unpopular.
Got me thinking, our Intelligence services are good at psy-ops and keeping our gullible MSM in line but God help us if we ever
actually needed real Intelligence about a country. I remember about a month ago how all of these 'Think Tank Guys' were predicting
how the only people loyal to Maduro were a few of his crony Generals, that the rank and file military hated him and there were
going to be mass defections.
It didn't happen and we are all just supposed to forget that.
[not a socialist, don't have any love for Maduro, I just know that I will never learn anything of about Venezuela from these think
tank dudes, we are just getting groomed]
Venezuela isn't about "socialism," or even Maduro--it's about the oil. They have the largest proven reserves in the world, though
much of it is non-conventional and would need a ton of investment to exploit. But it's their oil, not ours, and we have no right
to meddle in their internal affairs.
Venezuela is neither about socialism nor oil in my opinion. It is everything to do with the neocons. And Trump buying into their
hegemonic dreams. Notice the resurrection of Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame as the man spearheading this in a triumvirate
with Bolton & Pompeo. IMO, a perfect foil for Putin & Xi to embroil the US in another regime change quagmire that further weakens
the US.
"There can be no conceivable excuse for relying on a contractor selected by the organisation which is claiming that there has
been a hack, when an alternative possibility is a leak: and the implications of the alternative possibility could be devastating
for that organisation.
To rely on a contractor linked to the notoriously Russophobic 'Atlantic Council' is even more preposterous."
True; and true. It is also true that the Clinton e-mail investigation was faux, a limp caricature of what an investigation
would look like when it is designed to uncover the truth. Allowing a subject's law firm to review the subject's e-mails from when
she was in government for relevancy is beyond preposterous. An investigation conducted in the normal way by apolitical Agents
in a field office would not walk away from a trove of evidence empty handed.
The inter-relatedness and overlapping of DoJ, CIA, and FBI personnel assigned to the Clinton e-mail case, the Russophobic nightmare
of a 'case' targeting Carter Page, and by extension, the Trump presidential campaign, and yes, the Mueller political op, all reek
of political bias and ineptitude followed by more political bias; and then culmination in a scorched earth investigation more
characteristic of something the STASI might have undertaken than American justice.
Early morning raids, gag orders, solitary confinements, show indictments that will never see adjudication in a court room - truly
unbelievable.
In your opinion was this surveillance, criminal & counter-intelligence investigation as well as information operations against
Trump centrally orchestrated or was it more reactive & decentralized?
There are so many facets. Fusion GPS & Nellie Ohr with her previous CIA connection. Her husband Bruce at the DOJ stovepiping
the dossier to the FBI. Brennan and his EC. Clapper and his intelligence assessment. Halper, Mifsud, Steele along with Hannigan
and the MI6 + GCHQ connection. Downer and the Aussies. FISA warrants on Page & Papadopolous. The whole Strzok & Page texting.
Comey, Lynch & the Hillary exoneration. McCabe. Then all the Russians. And the media leaks to generate hysteria.
I'd recommend for reading Alexei Yurchak's "Everything Was Forever, Until It was No More: The Last Soviet Generation." Its
about a class of apparatchiks and bureaucrats and hangers on who spoke this arcane, abstract dogmatic language that anyone normal
had long since given up trying to understand. It had long ceased to have any relevance or attachment to the lives lived by ordinary,
increasingly suffering people, who started talking to each other in practical and direct language.
And yet the chatterati
continued to chatter and invent ludicrously unreal worlds and analyses of the actual world they lived in until... bang... it was
no more.
I'd skip the first few chapters which are full of impenetrable marxist jargon.
The Russian collusion investigation was based solely on the dodgy Steele Dossier that was discredited here from the get-go.
This was a product of British Intelligence Community. The intent was to keep and then to get Donald Trump out of the White House.
It failed but they did succeed in turning him into a neo-lib-con fellow traveler.
There are clear parallels between the end stages of the Soviet Union and the American Empire. My take since the Iraq Invasion
is that they are insane. The ruling elite is detached from reality, incompetent and arrogant. Sooner or later someone with their
facilities still intact will lead a middle-class revolt against the global plutocracy to restore democracy and reverse the rising
inequality. We were lucky that the fall of the Soviet Union did not lead to a nuclear war. The next time a nuclear armed Empire
crashes we may not be so fortunate.
"... This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else. ..."
"Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as
European. That's why Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean,
a community referred to by Russian experts as 'the Union of Europe' which will strengthen Russia's potential in its economic pivot
toward the 'New Asia.'" Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, February 2012
The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its tentacles
across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda, but the victim.
The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire Washington political
establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony.
Try to imagine for a minute, that the hacking claims were not part of a sinister plan by Vladimir Putin "to sow discord and division"
in the United States, but were conjured up to create an external threat that would justify an aggressive response from Washington.
That's what Russiagate is really all about.
US policymakers and their allies in the military and Intelligence agencies, know that relations with Russia are bound to get increasingly
confrontational, mainly because Washington is determined to pursue its ambitious "pivot" to Asia plan. This new regional strategy
focuses on "strengthening bilateral security alliances, expanding trade and investment, and forging a broad-based military presence."
In short, the US is determined to maintain its global supremacy by establishing military outposts across Eurasia, continuing to tighten
the noose around Russia and China, and reinforcing its position as the dominant player in the most populous and prosperous region
in the world. The plan was first presented in its skeletal form by the architect of Washington's plan to rule the world, Zbigniew
Brzezinski. Here's how Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor summed it up in his 1997 magnum opus, The Grand Chessboard:
American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives:
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia (p.30) .. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically
axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions.
. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its
enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's
known energy resources." ("The Grand Chessboard:American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives", Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic
Books, page 31, 1997)
14 years after those words were written, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took up the banner of imperial expansion and
demanded a dramatic shift in US foreign policy that would focus primarily on increasing America's military footprint in Asia. It
was Clinton who first coined the term "pivot" in a speech she delivered in 2010 titled "America's Pacific Century". Here's an excerpt
from the speech:
"As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot
point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be
smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership,
secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will
therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific
region
Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge
technology ..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia The region already generates more than
half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015,
we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia and our investment opportunities in Asia's dynamic markets."
("America's Pacific Century", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton", Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)
The pivot strategy is not some trifling rehash of the 19th century "Great Game" promoted by think-tank fantasists and conspiracy
theorists. It is Washington's premier foreign policy doctrine, a 'rebalancing' theory that focuses on increasing US military and
diplomatic presence across the Asian landmass. Naturally, NATO's ominous troop movements on Russia's western flank and Washington's
provocative naval operations in the South China Sea have sent up red flags in Moscow and Beijing. Former Chinese President Hu Jintao
summed it up like this:
"The United States has strengthened its military deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthened the US-Japan military
alliance, strengthened strategic cooperation with India, improved relations with Vietnam, inveigled Pakistan, established a pro-American
government in Afghanistan, increased arms sales to Taiwan, and so on. They have extended outposts and placed pressure points on
us from the east, south, and west."
Russian President Vladimir Putin has been equally critical of Washington's erratic behavior. NATO's eastward expansion has convinced
Putin that the US will continue to be a disruptive force on the continent for the foreseeable future. Both leaders worry that Washington's
relentless provocations will lead to an unexpected clash that will end in war.
Even so, the political class has fully embraced the pivot strategy as a last-gasp attempt to roll back the clock to the post war
era when the world's industrial centers were in ruins and America was the only game in town. Now the center of gravity has shifted
from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and
gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn the applecart by bullying allies and threatening
rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging, and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred
and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end.
Washington has many ways of dealing with its enemies, but none of these strategies have dampened the growth of its competitors
in the east. China is poised to overtake the US as the world's biggest economy sometime in the next 2 decades while Russia's intervention
in Syria has rolled back Washington's plan to topple Bashar al Assad and consolidate its grip on the resource-rich Middle East. That
plan has now collapsed forcing US policymakers to scrap the War on Terror altogether and switch to a "great power competition" which
acknowledges that the US can no longer unilaterally impose its will wherever it goes. Challenges to America's dominance are emerging
everywhere particularly in the region where the US hopes to reign supreme, Asia.
This is why the entire national security state now stands foursquare behind the improbable pivot plan. It's a desperate "Hail
Mary" attempt to preserve the decaying unipolar world order.
What does that mean in practical terms?
It means that the White House (the National Security Strategy) the Pentagon (National Defense Strategy) and the Intelligence Community
(The Worldwide Threat Assessment) have all drawn up their own respective analyses of the biggest threats the US currently faces.
Naturally, Russia is at the very top of those lists. Russia has derailed Washington's proxy war in Syria, frustrated US attempts
to establish itself across Central Asia, and strengthened ties with the EU hoping to "create a harmonious community of economies
from Lisbon to Vladivostok." (Putin)
Keep in mind, the US does not feel threatened by the possibility of a Russian attack, but by Russia's ability to thwart Washington's
grandiose imperial ambitions in Asia.
As we noted, the National Security Strategy (NSS) is a statutorily mandated document produced by the White House that explains
how the President intends to implement his national security vision. Not surprisingly, the document's main focus is Russia and China.
Here's an excerpt:
"China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They
are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress
their societies and expand their influence." (Neither Russia nor China are attempting to erode American security and prosperity."
They are merely growing their economies and expanding their markets. If US corporations reinvested their capital into factories,
employee training and R and D instead of stock buybacks and executive compensation, then they would be better able to complete globally.)
Here's more: "Through modernized forms of subversive tactics, Russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries
around the world." (This is a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black.')
"Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries
target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data." (The western media behemoth is the biggest disinformation
bullhorn the world has ever seen. RT and Sputnik don't hold a candle to the ginormous MSM 'Wurlitzer' that controls the cable news
stations, the newspapers and most of the print media. The Mueller Report proves beyond a doubt that the politically-motivated nonsense
one reads in the media is neither reliably sourced nor trustworthy.)
The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community is even more explicit in its attacks on Russia. Check it out:
"Threats to US national security will expand and diversify in the coming year, driven in part by China and Russia as they respectively
compete more intensely with the United States and its traditional allies and partners . We assess that Moscow will continue pursuing
a range of objectives to expand its reach, including undermining the US-led liberal international order, dividing Western political
and security institutions, demonstrating Russia's ability to shape global issues, and bolstering Putin's domestic legitimacy.
We assess that Moscow has heightened confidence, based on its success in helping restore the Asad regime's territorial control
in Syria, ·Russia seeks to boost its military presence and political influence in the Mediterranean and Red Seas mediate conflicts,
including engaging in the Middle East Peace Process and Afghanistan reconciliation .
Russia will continue pressing Central Asia's leaders to support Russian-led economic and security initiatives and reduce engagement
with Washington. Russia and China are likely to intensify efforts to build influence in Europe at the expense of US interests
" ("The Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community",
USG )
Notice how the Intelligence Community summary does not suggest that Russia poses an imminent military threat to the US, only that
Russia has restored order in Syria, strengthened ties with China, emerged as an "honest broker" among countries in the Middle East,
and used the free market system to improve relations with its trading partners and grow its economy. The IC appears to find fault
with Russia because it is using the system the US created to better advantage than the US. This is entirely understandable given
Putin's determination to draw Europe and Asia closer together through a region-wide economic integration plan. Here's Putin:
"We must consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy
complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps
in that direction. These projects have the support of many governments and involve major European energy companies. Once the pipelines
start operating at full capacity, Europe will have a reliable and flexible gas-supply system that does not depend on the political
whims of any nation. This will strengthen the continent's energy security not only in form but in substance. This is particularly
relevant in the light of the decision of some European states to reduce or renounce nuclear energy."
The gas pipelines and high-speed rail are the arteries that will bind the continents together and strengthen the new EU-Asia superstate.
This is Washington's greatest nightmare, a massive, thriving free trade zone beyond its reach and not subject to its rules. In 2012,
Hillary Clinton acknowledged this new threat and promised to do everything in her power to destroy it. Check out this excerpt:
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described efforts to promote greater economic integration in Eurasia as "a move to
re-Sovietize the region." . "We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it,"
she said at an international conference in Dublin on December 6, 2012, Radio Free Europe."
"Slow down or prevent it"?
Why? Because EU-Asia growth and prosperity will put pressure on US debt markets, US corporate interests, US (ballooning) national
debt, and the US Dollar? Is that why Hillary is so committed to sabotaging Putin's economic integration plan?
Indeed, it is. Washington wants to block progress and prosperity in the east in order to extend the lifespan of a doddering and
thoroughly-bankrupt state that is presently $22 trillion in the red but continues to write checks on an overdrawn account.
But Russia shouldn't be blamed for Washington's profligate behavior, that's not Putin's fault. Moscow is merely using the free
market system more effectively that the US.
Now consider the Pentagon's 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) which reiterates many of the same themes as the other two documents.
"Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding. We
are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order -- creating a
security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition,
not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security."
(Naturally, the "security environment" is going to be more challenging when 'regime change' is the cornerstone of one's foreign
policy. Of course, the NDS glosses over that sad fact. Here's more:)
"Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions
of its neighbors ..(Baloney. Russia has been a force for stability in Syria and Ukraine. If Obama had his way, Syria would have wound
up like Iraq, a hellish wastelands occupied by foreign mercenaries. Is that how the Pentagon measures success?) Here's more:
"China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model
"China and Russia are now undermining the international order from within the system .
Get the picture? China and Russia, China and Russia, China and Russia. Bad, bad, bad.
Why? Because they are successfully implementing their own development model which is NOT programed to favor US financial institutions
and corporations. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. The only reason Russia and China are a threat to the "rules-based system",
is because Washington insists on being the only one who makes the rules. That's why foreign leaders are no longer falling in line,
because it's not a fair system.
These assessments represent the prevailing opinion of senior-level policymakers across the spectrum. (The White House, the Pentagon
and the Intelligence Community) The USG is unanimous in its judgement that a harsher more combative approach is needed to deal with
Russia and China. Foreign policy elites want to put the nation on the path to more confrontation, more conflict and more war. At
the same time, none of these three documents suggest that Russia has any intention of launching an attack on the United States. The
greatest concern is the effect that emerging competitors will have on Washington's provocative plan for military and economic expansion,
the threat that Russia and China pose to America's tenuous grip on global power. It is that fear that drives US foreign policy.
And this is broader context into which we must fit the Russia investigation. The reason the Russia hacking furor has been allowed
to flourish and spread despite the obvious lack of any supporting evidence, is because the vilifying of Russia segues perfectly with
the geopolitical interests of elites in the government. The USG now works collaboratively with the media to influence public attitudes
on issues that are important to the powerful foreign policy establishment. The ostensible goal of these psychological operations
(PSYOP) is to selectively use information on "audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately
the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals."
The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes and
perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the
The emerging Euro-Asian power block is very heterogeneous. Russia, China, and the smaller affiliated players like Central Asia,
Iran, Syria, Turkey don't agree on almost anything. They have different cultures, religions, economies, demographic profiles,
even writing systems. The most rational strategy to prevent the Euro-Asian block from consolidating would be to get them to fight
each other. Alternatively, find the weakest link and attack it in an area where its reluctant allies don't share its interests.
Exactly the opposite has happened in the last 5-10 years: US has seemingly worked overtime to get China-Russia alliance of
the ground. They used to distrust each other, today, after Ukraine, South China See, etc they have become close allies. Same with
Iran and Syria: instead of letting them stew in their own internal problems – mostly religious and having a nepotistic elite –
US has managed to turn the fight into an external geo-political struggle, literally invited Russia to join in, and ended up losing.
Bush turned Iraq from a fanatically anti-Iran bastion to a reliable ally of Iran and started an un-winnable land war in Afghanistan
(incredible!). Obama turned Libya, the richest and most stable African country that threatened no-one and kept African migrants
far away, into a chaotic hellhole where slave trade flourishes and millions of Sub-Saharan Africans can use it to move on to Europe.
Then Obama tried to coup-de-etat Erdogan in Turkey, and – even worse – failed miserably. This gang can't shoot straight
– whatever they put in their position papers is meaningless drivel because they are too stupid to think. They have no patience
to wait for the right time to move, no ability to manage on the ground allies, and an aversion to casualties that makes winning
a war impossible. Today Trump threatens Germany over its energy security (pipelines), further antagonises Turkey and Erdogan,
watches helplessly as EU becomes the next UN (lame and irrelevant), and bets everything on a few small allies like Saudi Arabia
and Izrael that are of almost no use in Euro-Asia.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that ' maybe I had bad information ' is no master of the universe.
And he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or ' information warfare ' – is
a pathetic sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
the russophobia is just drama to keep the MIC spending at $700+ billion per year
there is no way to justify that level of spending and pretend they don't have $25 billion one time to actually help solve the
real problem for the U.S.
"The USG now sees the minds of ordinary Americans as a legitimate target for their influence campaigns. They regard attitudes
and perceptions as "the cognitive domain of the battlespace" which they must exploit in order to build public support for their
vastly unpopular wars and interventions. "
Here is a short guide on how to detect subversion of the mind by the media and their handlers by a former military intelligence
officer.
If one recognizes that Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" in replacing
"Lebensraum" with "control over Eurasia", "Tausendjähriges Reich" with "American Primacy" and providing our 'elite' with an "realist"
and "amoral" excuse to act completely and consistently immoral one has to recognize too that this "Grand Chessboard" is an amalgamation
of 'Mein Kampf' and 'Il Principe".
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki himself
proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American Primacy".
Recognizing this however one can't escape the conclusion that this "Grand Chessboard" with its consistent 'amoral realist imperatives'
is serving up inherently immoral 'imperatives' as inescapable options dressed up in academic language and with absolutely abhorrent
arrogance.
Stating that Brennan's Russophobia is somehow a degeneration of Brzezinki's "Grand Chessboard" is completely overlooking how
difficult it would be to outdo Brzezinki's own total moral degeneration.
One has to recognize that by now the only bipartisan aspect of US policy can be found in sharing these despicable and immoral
'imperatives' to maintain that "American Primacy" at all cost (of course to the rest of the world).
"The allegations of 'Russian meddling' only make sense if they're put into a broader geopolitical context. Once we realize that
Washington is implementing an aggressive "containment" strategy to militarily encircle Russia and China in order to spread its
tentacles across Central Asian, then we begin to understand that Russia is not the perpetrator of the hostilities and propaganda,
but the victim. The Russia hacking allegations are part of a larger asymmetrical-information war that has been joined by the entire
Washington political establishment. The objective is to methodically weaken an emerging rival while reinforcing US global hegemony."
TRUE!
I would suggest that the initials 'US' in the final sentence be changed to: Anglo-Zionist Empire.
"Now the center of gravity has shifted from west to east, leaving Washington with just two options: Allow the emerging giants
in Asia to connect their high-speed rail and gas pipelines to Europe creating the world's biggest free trade zone, or try to overturn
the applecart by bullying allies and threatening rivals, by implementing sanctions that slow growth and send currencies plunging,
and by arming jihadist proxies to fuel ethnic hatred and foment political unrest. Clearly, the choice has already been made. Uncle
Sam has decided to fight til the bitter end."
Just like the Brit Empire – of which the Yank Empire is merely Part 2, the part where it becomes obvious that it is the Anglo-Zionist
Empire, which, like a band of screeching Pharisees standing on the walls of Jerusalem hurling curses at the Romans they inform
that Jehovah will soon wipe out all Romans to save His Chosen Race, would choose utter destruction for all over any common sense
backing down to prevent mass slaughter.
Nothing harmed US more than Brzezinski's ideology. US did build up far east with their investments, while neglecting their own
backyard. US should have build up rather North and South America and make it the envy of the world. Neglecting particularly South
America now created Desperate south American people, who have no jobs and no future and these people are now invading US.
A guy who says about the Russia-gate collusion fiasco that 'maybe I had bad information' is no master of the universe. And
he run the joint under Obama. Complaining about Russia saying bad stuff about you – or 'information warfare' – is a pathetic
sign of weakness. Maybe the testosterone levels have dropped more than we have been told.
Testosterone plus steady, unrelenting decline and corruption of American "elites" most of who have no background in any fields
related to actual effective governance especially in national security (military) and diplomatic fields. Zbig's book is also nothing
more than doctrine-mongering based on complete lack of understanding of Russian history.
Reluctant to use that Hitler comparison one ought to read the Introduction of the "Grand Chessboard" in which Brzezinki
himself proudly refers to both Hitler and Stalin sharing his ideas about control over Eurasia as a prerequisite for that "American
Primacy".
Zbig was a political "scientist" (which is not a science) by education, fact aggravated by his Russophobia, and thus inability
to grasp fundamentals of military power and warfare–a defining characteristic of American "elites". He, obviously, missed on the
military-technological development of 1970s through 1990s, to arrive to the inevitable conclusion that classic "geopolitics" doesn't
apply anymore. Today we all can observe how it doesn't apply and is made obsolete.
(Jan.1998) US history – "How Jimmy Carter I Started the Mujahideen" – Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor 1977-1981
"Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services
began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security
adviser to President Carter.
Zbigniew Brzezinski Taliban Pakistan Afghanistan pep talk 1979
In 1979 Carters National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski went into Pakistans border regions with Afghanistan to give
a little pep talk to some prospective majehadeen (Holy Warriors). In a 1997 interview for CNN's Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted
about the Carter Administration's proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived.
@DESERT FOX Why was it that the Brit Empire kept acting throughout the later 18th, the 19th and early 20th centuries to harm
Russia, even when it technically was allied with Russia? Why the Crimean War, for example?
Why, for example, was Brit secret service all over the assassination of Rasputin and tied in multiple ways to most non-Marxist
revolutionary groups?
This entire article fleshes out one central truth – capitalism as practiced by the US Government inevitably involves war by
any and all means, seeking total domination of every human being on the planet, foriegn or native to the US Hegemon. It seeks
total rule of the rich and powerful over everyone else.
@anon Like the Ukranians, the 'Balts' virtually always are controlled by somebody else. When Russia does not control the Baltic
states, they are controlled by either Poles or Germans. Russians know what that means: the Baltic states are then used as weapons
to attack Russia.
The region is much calmer when Russia controls the Baltic states, and that is before taking into consideration how the Polish-Lithuanian
Empire turned its Jews lose to terrorize all Orthodox Christians and how Germanic states later used Lutheranism as a force in
the Baltics to ignite war with Russia and, under the queer Frederick the Great also used Jewish bankers to finance wars against
Russia.
@JR ssaid:
If one recognizes that Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its
Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" in replacing "Lebensraum" with "control over Eurasia",
"Tausendjähriges Reich" with "American Primacy" and providing our 'elite' with an
"realist" and "amoral" excuse to act completely and consistently immoral one has to recognize
too that this "Grand Chessboard" is an amalgamation of 'Mein Kampf' and 'Il Principe".
Except that Germany did not send Germans into the conquered territories during WWII,
though they wanted to do so.
Junk author, junk book of the butcher of Yugoslavia who would be hanged with Bill clinton by
Nuremberg Tribunal for crimes against peace. Albright is not bright at all. she a female bully
and that shows.
Mostly projection. And this arrogant warmonger like to exercise in Russophobia (which was the
main part of the USSR which saved the world fro fascism, sacrificing around 20 million people)
This book is book of denial of genocide against Iraqis and Serbian population where bombing with
uranium enriched bombs doubled cancer cases.If you can pass over those facts that this book is
for you.
Like Robert Kagan and other neocons Albright is waiving authoritarism dead chicken again and
again. that's silly and disingenuous. authoritarism is a method of Governance used in military.
It is not an ideology. Fascism is an ideology, a flavor of far right nationalism. Kind of
"enhanced" by some socialist ideas far right nationalism.
The view of fascism without economic circumstances that create fascism, and first of
immiseration of middle and working class and high level of unemployment is a primitive
ahistorical view. Fascism is the ultimate capitalist statism acting simultaneously as the civil
religion for the population also enforced by the power of the state. It has a lot of common with
neoliberalism, that's why neoliberalism is sometimes called "inverted totalitarism".
In reality fascism while remaining the dictatorship of capitalists for capitalist and the
national part of financial oligarchy, it like neoliberalism directed against working class
fascism comes to power on the populist slogans of righting wrong by previous regime and kicking
foreign capitalists and national compradors (which in Germany turned to be mostly Jewish)
out.
It comes to power under the slogans of stopping the distribution of wealth up and elimination
of the class of reinters -- all citizens should earn income, not get it from bond and other
investments (often in reality doing completely the opposite).
While intrinsically connected and financed by a sizable part of national elite which often
consist of far right military leadership, a part of financial oligarchy and large part of lower
middle class (small properties) is is a protest movement which want to revenge for the
humiliation and prefer military style organization of the society to democracy as more potent
weapon to achieve this goal.
Like any far right movement the rise of fascism and neo-fascism is a sign of internal problem
within a given society, often a threat to the state or social order.
Still another noted that Fascism is often linked to people who are part of a distinct ethnic
or racial group, who are under economic stress, and who feel that they are being denied rewards
to which they are entitled. "It's not so much what people have." she said, "but what they think
they should have -- and what they fear." Fear is why Fascism's emotional reach can extend to
all levels of society. No political movement can flourish without popular support, but Fascism
is as dependent on the wealthy and powerful as it is on the man or woman in the street -- on
those who have much to lose and those who have nothing at all.
This insight made us think that Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political
ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power. For example, Italy in the 1920s
included self-described Fascists of the left (who advocated a dictatorship of the
dispossessed), of the right (who argued for an authoritarian corporatist state), and of the
center (who sought a return to absolute monarchy). The German National Socialist Party (the
Nazis) originally came together ar ound a list of demands that ca- tered to anti-Semites,
anti-immigrants, and anti-capitalists but also advocated for higher old-age pensions, more
educational op- portunities for the poor, an end to child labor, and improved ma- ternal health
care. The Nazis were racists and, in their own minds, reformers at the same time.
If Fascism concerns itself less with specific policies than with finding a pathway to power,
what about the tactics of lead- ership? My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remem-
ber best were charismatic. Through one method or another, each established an emotional link to
the crowd and, like the central figure in a cult, brought deep and often ugly feelings to the
sur- face. This is how the tentacles of Fascism spread inside a democ- racy. Unlike a monarchy
or a military dictatorship imposed on society from above. Fascism draws energy from men and
women who are upset because of a lost war, a lost job, a memory of hu- miliation, or a sense
that their country is in steep decline. The more painful the grounds for resentment, the easier
it is for a Fascist leader to gam followers by dangling the prospect of re- newal or by vowing
to take back what has been stolen.
Like the mobilizers of more benign movements, these secular evangelists exploit the
near-universal human desire to be part of a meaningful quest. The more gifted among them have
an apti- tude for spectacle -- for orchestrating mass gatherings complete with martial music,
incendiary rhetoric, loud cheers, and arm-
lifting salutes. To loyalists, they offer the prize of membership in a club from which
others, often the objects of ridicule, are kept out. To build fervor, Fascists tend to be
aggressive, militaristic, and -- when circumstances allow -- expansionist. To secure the
future, they turn schools into seminaries for true believers, striv- ing to produce "new men"
and "new women" who will obey without question or pause. And, as one of my students observed,
"a Fascist who launches his career by being voted into office will have a claim to legitimacy
that others do not."
After climbing into a position of power, what comes next: How does a Fascist consolidate
authority? Here several students piped up: "By controlling information." Added another, "And
that's one reason we have so much cause to worry today." Most of us have thought of the
technological revolution primarily as a means for people from different walks of life to
connect with one another, trade ideas, and develop a keener understanding of why men and women
act as they do -- in other words, to sharpen our perceptions of truth. That's still the case,
but now we are not so sure. There is a troubling "Big Brother" angle because of the mountain of
personal data being uploaded into social media. If an advertiser can use that information to
home in on a consumer because of his or her individual interests, what's to stop a Fascist
government from doing the same? "Suppose I go to a demonstra- tion like the Women's March,"
said a student, "and post a photo
on social media. My name gets added to a list and that list can end up anywhere. How do we
protect ourselves against that?"
Even more disturbing is the ability shown by rogue regimes and their agents to spread lies
on phony websites and Facebook. Further, technology has made it possible for extremist
organiza- tions to construct echo chambers of support for conspiracy theo- ries, false
narratives, and ignorant views on religion and race. This is the first rule of deception:
repeated often enough, almost any statement, story, or smear can start to sound plausible. The
Internet should be an ally of freedom and a gateway to knowledge; in some cases, it is
neither.
Historian Robert Paxton begins one of his books by assert- ing: "Fascism was the major
political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain." Over the
years, he and other scholars have developed lists of the many moving parts that Fascism
entails. Toward the end of our discussion, my class sought to articulate a comparable list.
Fascism, most of the students agreed, is an extreme form of authoritarian rule. Citizens are
required to do exactly what lead- ers say they must do, nothing more, nothing less. The
doctrine is linked to rabid nationalism. It also turns the traditional social contract upside
down. Instead of citizens giving power to the state in exchange for the protection of their
rights, power begins with the leader, and the people have no rights. Under Fascism,
the mission of citizens is to serve; the government's job is to rule.
When one talks about this subject, confusion often arises about the difference between
Fascism and such related concepts as totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny,
autocracy, and so on. As an academic, I might be tempted to wander into that thicket, but as a
former diplomat, I am primarily concerned with actions, not labels. To my mind, a Fascist is
someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is
unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary --
including violence -- to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be
a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist.
Often the difference can be seen in who is trusted with the guns. In seventeenth-century
Europe, when Catholic aristocrats did battle with Protestant aristocrats, they fought over
scripture but agreed not to distribute weapons to their peasants, thinking it safer to wage war
with mercenary armies. Modern dictators also tend to be wary of their citizens, which is why
they create royal guards and other elite security units to ensure their personal safe- ty. A
Fascist, however, expects the crowd to have his back. Where kings try to settle people down,
Fascists stir them up so that when the fighting begins, their foot soldiers have the will and
the firepower to strike first.
Hypocrisy at its worst from a lady who advocated hawkish foreign policy which included the
most sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, when, in 1998, Clinton began almost daily
attacks on Iraq in the so-called no-fly zones, and made so-called regime change in Iraq
official U.S. policy.
In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeleine Albright, who at the time was
Clinton's U.N. ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, in connection with
the Clinton administration presiding over the most devastating regime of sanctions in history
that the U.N. estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of
them children. , "We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that's more
children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think
the price is worth it.
While I found much of the story-telling in "Fascism" engaging, I come away expecting much
more of one of our nation's pre-eminent senior diplomats . In a nutshell, she has devoted a
whole volume to describing the ascent of intolerant fascism and its many faces, but punted on
the question "How should we thwart fascism going forward?"
Even that question leaves me a bit unsatisfied, since it is couched in double-negative
syntax. The thing there is an appetite for, among the readers of this book who are looking
for more than hand-wringing about neofascism, is a unifying title or phrase which captures in
single-positive syntax that which Albright prefers over fascism. What would that be? And, how
do we pursue it, nurture it, spread it and secure it going forward? What is it?
I think Albright would perhaps be willing to rally around "Good Government" as the theme
her book skirts tangentially from the dark periphery of fascistic government. "Virtuous
Government"? "Effective Government"? "Responsive Government"?
People concerned about neofascism want to know what we should be doing right now to avoid
getting sidetracked into a dark alley of future history comparable to the Nazi brown shirt or
Mussolini black shirt epochs. Does Albright present a comprehensive enough understanding of
fascism to instruct on how best to avoid it? Or, is this just another hand-wringing exercise,
a la "you'll know it when you see it", with a proactive superficiality stuck at the level of
pejorative labelling of current styles of government and national leaders? If all you can say
is what you don't want, then the challenge of threading the political future of the US is
left unruddered. To make an analogy to driving a car, if you don't know your destination, and
only can get navigational prompts such as "don't turn here" or "don't go down that street",
then what are the chances of arriving at a purposive destination?
The other part of this book I find off-putting is that Albright, though having served as
Secretary of State, never talks about the heavy burden of responsibility that falls on a head
of state. She doesn't seem to empathize at all with the challenge of top leadership. Her
perspective is that of the detached critic. For instance, in discussing President Duterte of
the Philippines, she fails to paint the dire situation under which he rose to national
leadership responsibility: Islamic separatists having violently taken over the entire city of
Marawi, nor the ubiquitous spread of drug cartel power to the level where control over law
enforcement was already ceded to the gangs in many places...entire islands and city
neighborhoods run by mafia organizations. It's easy to sit back and criticize Duterte's
unleashing of vigilante justice -- What was Mrs. Albright's better alternative to regain
ground from vicious, well-armed criminal organizations? The distancing from leadership
responsibility makes Albright's treatment of the Philippines twin crises of gang-rule and
Islamist revolutionaries seem like so much academic navel-gazing....OK for an undergrad
course at Georgetown maybe, but unworthy of someone who served in a position of high
responsibility. Duterte is liked in the Philippines. What he did snapped back the power of
the cartels, and returned a deserved sense of security to average Philippinos (at least those
not involved with narcotics). Is that not good government, given the horrendous circumstances
Duterte came up to deal with? What lack of responsibility in former Philippine leadership
allowed things to get so out of control? Is it possible that Democrats and liberals are
afraid to be tough, when toughness is what is needed? I'd much rather read an account from an
average Philippino about the positive impacts of the vigilante campaign, than listen of
Madame Secretary sermonizing out of context about Duterte. OK, he's not your idea of a nice
guy. Would you rather sit back, prattle on about the rule of law and due process while
Islamic terrorists wrest control over where you live? Would you prefer the leadership of a
drug cartel boss to Duterte?
My critique is offered in a constructive manner. I would certainly encourage Albright (or
anyone!) to write a book in a positive voice about what it's going to take to have good
national government in the US going forward, and to help spread such abundance globally. I
would define "good" as the capability to make consistently good policy decisions, ones that
continue to look good in hindsight, 10, 20 or 30 years later. What does that take?
I would submit that the essential "preserving democracy" process component is having a
population that is adequately prepared for collaborative problem-solving. Some understanding
of history is helpful, but it's simply not enough. Much more essential is for every young
person to experience team problem-solving, in both its cooperative and competitive aspects.
Every young person needs to experience a team leadership role, and to appreciate what it
takes from leaders to forge constructive design from competing ideas and champions. Only
after serving as a referee will a young person understand the limits to "passion" that
individual contributors should bring to the party. Only after moderating and herding cats
will a young person know how to interact productively with leaders and other contributors.
Much of the skill is counter-instinctual. It's knowing how to express ideas...how to field
criticism....how to nudge people along in the desired direction...and how to avoid ad-hominem
attacks, exaggerations, accusations and speculative grievances. It's learning how to manage
conflict productively toward excellence. Way too few of our young people are learning these
skills, and way too few of our journalists know how to play a constructive role in managing
communications toward successful complex problem-solving. Albright's claim that a
journalist's job is primarily to "hold leaders accountable" really betrays an absolving of
responsibility for the media as a partner in good government -- it doesn't say whether the
media are active players on the problem-solving team (which they have to be for success), or
mere spectators with no responsibility for the outcome. If the latter, then journalism
becomes an irritant, picking at the scabs over and over, but without any forward progress.
When the media takes up a stance as an "opponent" of leadership, you end up with poor
problem-solving results....the system is fighting itself instead of making forward
progress.
"Fascism" doesn't do nearly enough to promote the teaching of practical civics 101 skills,
not just to the kids going into public administration, but to everyone. For, it is in the
norms of civility, their ability to be practiced, and their defense against excesses, that
fascism (e.g., Antifa) is kept at bay.
Everyone in a democracy has to know the basics:
• when entering a disagreement, don't personalize it
• never demonize an opponent
• keep a focus on the goal of agreement and moving forward
• never tell another person what they think, but ask (non-rhetorically) what they think
then be prepared to listen and absorb
• do not speak untruths or exaggerate to make an argument
• do not speculate grievance
• understand truth gathering as a process; detect when certainty is being bluffed;
question sources
• recognize impasse and unproductive argumentation and STOP IT
• know how to introduce a referee or moderator to regain productive collaboration
• avoid ad hominem attacks
• don't take things personally that wrankle you;
• give the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation
• don't jump to conclusions
• don't reward theatrical manipulation
These basics of collaborative problem-solving are the guts of a "liberal democracy" that
can face down the most complex challenges and dilemmas.
I gave the book 3 stars for the great story-telling, and Albright has been part of a great
story of late 20th century history. If she would have told us how to prevent fascism going
forward, and how to roll it back in "hard case" countries like North Korea and Sudan, I would
have given her a 5. I'm not that interested in picking apart the failure cases of
history...they teach mostly negative exemplars. Much rather I would like to read about
positive exemplars of great national government -- "great" defined by popular acclaim, by the
actual ones governed. Where are we seeing that today? Canada? Australia? Interestingly, both
of these positive exemplars have strict immigration policies.
Is it possible that Albright is just unable, by virtue of her narrow escape from Communist
Czechoslovakia and acceptance in NYC as a transplant, to see that an optimum immigration
policy in the US, something like Canada's or Australia's, is not the looming face of fascism,
but rather a move to keep it safely in its corner in coming decades? At least, she admits to
her being biased by her life story.
That suggests her views on refugees and illegal immigrants as deserving of unlimited
rights to migrate into the US might be the kind of cloaked extremism that she is warning us
about.
Albright's book is a comprehensive look at recent history regarding the rise and fall of
fascist leaders; as well as detailing leaders in nations that are starting to mimic fascist
ideals. Instead of a neat definition, she uses examples to bolster her thesis of what are
essential aspects of fascism. Albright dedicates each section of the book to a leader or
regime that enforces fascist values and conveys this to the reader through historical events
and exposition while also peppering in details of her time as Secretary of State. The climax
(and 'warning'), comes at the end, where Albright applies what she has been discussing to the
current state of affairs in the US and abroad.
Overall, I would characterize this as an enjoyable and relatively easy read. I think the
biggest strength of this book is how Albright uses history, previous examples of leaders and
regimes, to demonstrate what fascism looks like and contributing factors on a national and
individual level. I appreciated that she lets these examples speak for themselves of the
dangers and subtleties of a fascist society, which made the book more fascinating and less of
a textbook. Her brief descriptions of her time as Secretary of State were intriguing and made
me more interested in her first book, 'Madame Secretary'. The book does seem a bit slow as it
is not until the end that Albright blatantly reveals the relevance of all of the history
relayed in the first couple hundred pages. The last few chapters are dedicated to the reveal:
the Trump administration and how it has affected global politics. Although, she never
outright calls Trump a fascist, instead letting the reader decide based on his decisions and
what you have read in the book leading up to this point, her stance is quite clear by the
end. I was surprised at what I shared politically with Albright, mainly in immigration and a
belief of empathy and understanding for others. However, I got a slight sense of
anti-secularism in the form of a disdain for those who do not subscribe to an Abrahamic
religion and she seemed to hint at this being partly an opening to fascism.
I also could have done without the both-sides-ism she would occasionally push, which seems
to be a tactic used to encourage people to 'unite against Trump'. These are small annoyances
I had with the book, my main critique is the view Albright takes on democracy. If anything,
the book should have been called "Democracy: the Answer" because that is the most consistent
stance Albright takes throughout. She seems to overlook many of the atrocities the US and
other nations have committed in the name of democracy and the negative consequences of
capitalism, instead, justifying negative actions with the excuse of 'it is for democracy and
everyone wants that' and criticizing those who criticize capitalism.
She does not do a good job of conveying the difference between a communist country like
Russia and a socialist country like those found in Scandinavia and seems okay with the idea
of the reader lumping them all together in a poor light. That being said, I would still
recommend this book for anyone's TBR as the message is essential for today, that the current
world of political affairs is, at least somewhat, teetering on a precipice and we are in need
of as many strong leaders as possible who are willing to uphold democratic ideals on the
world stage and mindful constituents who will vote them in.
The book is very well written, easy to read, and follows a pretty standard formula making
it accessible to the average reader. However, it suffers immensely from, what I suspect are,
deeply ingrained political biases from the author.
Whilst I don't dispute the criteria the author applies in defining fascism, or the targets
she cites as examples, the first bias creeps in here when one realises the examples chosen
are traditional easy targets for the US (with the exception of Turkey). The same criteria
would define a country like Singapore perfectly as fascist, yet the country (or Malaysia)
does not receive a mention in the book.
Further, it grossly glosses over what Ms. Albright terms facist traits from the US
governments of the past. If the author is to be believed, the CIA is holier than thou, never
intervened anywhere or did anything that wasn't with the best interests of democracy at
heart, and American foreign policy has always existed to build friendships and help out their
buddies. To someone ingrained in this rhetoric for years I am sure this is an easy pill to
swallow, but to the rest of the world it makes a number of assertions in the book come across
as incredibly naive. out of 5 stars
Trite and opaque
We went with my husband to the presentation of this book at UPenn with Albright before it
came out and Madeleine's spunk, wit and just glorious brightness almost blinded me. This is a
2.5 star book, because 81 year old author does not really tell you all there is to tell when
she opens up on a subject in any particular chapter, especially if it concerns current US
interest.
Lets start from the beginning of the book. What really stood out, the missing 3rd Germany
ally, Japan and its emperor. Hirohito (1901-1989) was emperor of Japan from 1926 until his
death in 1989. He took over at a time of rising democratic sentiment, but his country soon
turned toward ultra-nationalism and militarism. During World War II (1939-45), Japan attacked
nearly all of its Asian neighbors, allied itself with Nazi Germany and launched a surprise
assault on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, forcing US to enter the war in 1941. Hirohito
was never indicted as a war criminal! does he deserve at least a chapter in her book?
Oh and by the way, did author mention anything about sanctions against Germany for
invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland? Up until the Pearl Harbor USA and
Germany still traded, although in March 1939, FDR slapped a 25% tariff on all German goods.
Like Trump is doing right now to some of US trading partners.
Next monster that deserves a chapter on Genocide in cosmic proportions post WW2 is
communist leader of China Mao Zedung. Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural
history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic
torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants compares to the Second World
War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in
China over these four years; the total worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55
million.
We learn that Argentina has given sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, but she forgets to
mention that 88 Nazi scientists arrived in the United States in 1945 and were promptly put to
work. For example, Wernher von Braun was the brains behind the V-2 rocket program, but had
intimate knowledge of what was going on in the concentration camps. Von Braun himself
hand-picked people from horrific places, including Buchenwald concentration camp. Tsk-Tsk
Madeline.
What else? Oh, lets just say that like Madelaine Albright my husband is Jewish and lost
extensive family to Holocoust. Ukrainian nationalists executed his great grandfather on
gistapo orders, his great grandmother disappeared in concentration camp, grandfather was
conscripted in june 1940 and decommissioned september 1945 and went through war as
infantryman through 3 fronts earning several medals. his grandmother, an ukrainian born jew
was a doctor in a military hospital in Saint Petersburg survived famine and saved several
children during blockade. So unlike Maideline who was raised as a Roman Catholic, my husband
grew up in a quiet jewish family in that territory that Stalin grabbed from Poland in 1939,
in a polish turn ukrainian city called Lvov(Lemberg). His family also had to ask for an
asylum, only they had to escape their home in Ukraine in 1991. He was told then "You are a
nice little Zid (Jew), we will kill you last" If you think things in ukraine changed, think
again, few weeks ago in Kiev Roma gypsies were killed and injured during pogroms, and nobody
despite witnesses went to jail. Also during demonstrations openly on the streets C14 unit is
waving swastikas and Heils. Why is is not mentioned anywhere in the book? is is because
Hunter Biden sits on the board of one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies called
Burisma since May 14, 2014, and Ukraine has an estimated 127.9 trillion cubic feet of
unproved technically recoverable shale gas resources? ( according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA).1 The most promising shale reserves appear to be in the
Carpathian Foreland Basin (also called the Lviv-Volyn Basin), which extends across Western
Ukraine from Poland into Romania, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the East (which borders
Russia).
Wow, i bet you did not know that. how ugly are politics, even this book that could have been
so much greater if the author told the whole ugly story. And how scary that there are
countries where you can go and openly be fascist.
To me, Fascism fails for the single reason that no two fascist leaders are alike. Learning
about one or a few, in a highly cursory fashion like in this book or in great detail, is
unlikely to provide one with any answers on how to prevent the rise of another or fend
against some such. And, as much as we are witnessing the rise of numerous democratic or
quasi-democratic "strongmen" around the world in global politics, it is difficult to brand
any of them as fascist in the orthodox sense.
As the author writes at the outset, it is difficult to separate a fascist from a tyrant or
a dictator. A fascist is a majoritarian who rouses a large group under some national, racial
or similar flag with rallying cries demanding suppression or exculcation of those excluded
from this group. A typical fascist leader loves her yes-men and hates those who disagree: she
does not mind using violence to suppress dissidents. A fascist has no qualms using propaganda
to popularize the agreeable "facts" and theories while debunking the inconvenient as lies.
What is not discussed explicitly in the book are perhaps some positive traits that separate
fascists from other types of tyrants: fascists are rarely lazy, stupid or prone to doing
things for only personal gains. They differ from the benevolent dictators for their record of
using heavy oppression against their dissidents. Fascists, like all dictators, change rules
to suit themselves, take control of state organizations to exercise total control and use
"our class is the greatest" and "kick others" to fuel their programs.
Despite such a detailed list, each fascist is different from each other. There is little
that even Ms Albright's fascists - from Mussolini and Hitler to Stalin to the Kims to Chavez
or Erdogan - have in common. In fact, most of the opponents of some of these
dictators/leaders would calll them by many other choice words but not fascists. The
circumstances that gave rise to these leaders were highly different and so were their rules,
methods and achievements.
The point, once again, is that none of the strongmen leaders around the world could be
easily categorized as fascists. Or even if they do, assigning them with such a tag and
learning about some other such leaders is unlikely to help. The history discussed in the book
is interesting but disjointed, perfunctory and simplistic. Ms Albright's selection is also
debatable.
Strong leaders who suppress those they deem as opponents have wreaked immense harms and
are a threat to all civil societies. They come in more shades and colours than terms we have
in our vocabulary (dictators, tyrants, fascists, despots, autocrats etc). A study of such
tyrant is needed for anyone with an interest in history, politics, or societal well-being.
Despite Ms Albright's phenomenal knowledge, experience, credentials, personal history and
intentions, this book is perhaps not the best place to objectively learn much about the risks
from the type of things some current leaders are doing or deeming as right.
Each time I get concerned about Trump's rhetoric or past actions I read idiotic opinions,
like those of our second worst ever Secretary of State, and come to appreciate him more.
Pejorative terms like fascism or populism have no place in a rational policy discussion. Both
are blatant attempts to apply a pejorative to any disagreeing opinion. More than half of the
book is fluffed with background of Albright, Hitler and Mussolini. Wikipedia is more
informative. The rest has snippets of more modern dictators, many of whom are either
socialists or attained power through a reaction to failed socialism, as did Hitler. She
squirms mightily to liken Trump to Hitler. It's much easier to see that Sanders is like
Maduro. The USA is following a path more like Venezuela than Germany.
Her history misses that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist, and Nazism in
Germany was a reaction to Wiemar socialism. The danger of fascism in the US is far greater
from the left than from the right. America is far left of where the USSR ever was. Remember
than Marx observed that Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. The USA with ready
made capitalism for reform fits Marx's pattern much better. Progressives deny that Sanders
and Warren are socialists. If not they are what Lenin called "useful idiots."
Albright says that she is proud of the speech where she called the USA the 'Indispensable
Nation.' She should be ashamed. Obama followed in his inaugural address, saying that we are
"the indispensable nation, responsible for world security." That turned into a policy of
human rights interventions leading to open ended wars (Syria, Yemen), nations in chaos
(Libya), and distrust of the USA (Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Israel, NK). Trump now has
to make nice with dictators to allay their fears that we are out to replace them.
She admires the good intentions of human rights intervention, ignoring the results. She says
Obama had some success without citing a single instance. He has apologized for Libya, but
needs many more apologies. She says Obama foreign policy has had some success, with no
mention of a single instance. Like many progressives, she confuses good intentions with
performance. Democracy spreading by well intentioned humanitarian intervention has resulted
in a succession of open ended war or anarchy.
The shorter histories of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Venezuela are much more
informative, although more a warning against socialism than right wing fascism. Viktor Orban
in Hungary is another reaction to socialism.
Albright ends the book with a forlorn hope that we need a Lincoln or Mandela, exactly what
our two party dictatorship will not generate as it yields ever worse and worse candidates for
our democracy to vote upon, even as our great society utopia generates ever more power for
weak presidents to spend our money and continue wrong headed foreign policy.
The greatest danger to the USA is not fascism, but of excessively poor leadership
continuing our slow slide to the bottom.
"... I believe that the current GLOBAL elites do understand exactly what they are doing and the potential consequences to the ongoing existence of private finance. ..."
"... The war that is being waged is an attempt to keep private finance in charge of our world ..."
"But current American elites have no concept of own actions having consequences."
I believe that the current GLOBAL elites do understand exactly what they are doing and the
potential consequences to the ongoing existence of private finance.
The war that is being waged is an attempt to keep private finance in charge of our world
and they are losing I am pleased to report
Sean
says:
April 4, 2019 at 4:51 pm GMT 300 Words I am not aware that anyone has ever considered Syria
a crucial centre of world power, and while Ukraine was once thought of that way back in the
days of Halford Makinder, I am afraid now they are both worthless.
I think you should distinguish between the deep state and the elite. The former are
primarily concerned with US primacy. The elite are economic internationalists and focused on
profit. Carter instituted a decades long policy mandating officials to help trade with China
under the influence of Brzezinski's Russophobia.
They fundamentally miscalculated the ability
of China to rapidly rival the West in productive capacity. Now the Western economies are
dependant on a Keynesian and financially frail China going all out for future growth. The elite
are in no position to lower the boom on China, and I think that is the last thing they
intend.
China is a milch cow for the global capitalists, they are dependant on China
succeeding.
Everyone is in favour of free trade if they think they will be successful in it, so the
Chinese enthusiasm is no evidence of altruism or the absence of a venal elite in their country.
Free trade allocating reward based on merit will benefit the American elite through their
Chinese investments, but it does not sound like good news for the American worker.
If there is pressure for something to stop China it will not just be coming from the rust
belt. The deep state plus the working class versus the financial elite is already ongoing; a
struggle to control American policy as the wealth generated by China is reaped by Western
financial elites and America falls to the status of second rate power.
@Andrei Martyanov All true. And one more point: compared with China, how much of the
present-day US economy is even real – i.e., results in the production of actual
goods that people might want, as opposed to dodgy financial/insurance transactions which may
add a lot of dollar value to GDP, but don't create anything real that enhances the quality of
life for the masses?
Economist used to have a joke: every time you break your leg, you increase GDP. First, you
gotta pay the hospital (transaction), then you gotta pay your doctor (another transaction),
then you gotta pay for your case (yet another transaction). All those transactions make it
look like 'wealth' is being created, because they are–numerically, at
least–increasing per capita GDP. But still: wouldn't you and the country actually be
better off if you hadn't broken your leg in the first place?
"... As usually happens in times of distress, the Germans became a people for whom resolve was valued more highly than prudence, daring more than caution, and righteousness more than discretion. In many ways, they were a people not so different from today's Americans. ..."
"... What was needed, the Germans thought, was a strong leader -- someone who would put an end to politics as usual; most of all, someone who could unite all the divisions in Germany and dispel the clamor. They found that leader in Adolf Hitler, and for a time, most Germans were glad they did. ..."
"... How would we react if things got worse? If we were to lose the war in Iraq, leaving a fundamentalist regime in place; if we endured several more major terrorist attacks; if the economy collapsed; if fuel prices reached $7 per gallon -- would we cling even more fiercely to our democratic ideals? Or would we instead demand greater surveillance, more secret prisons, more arrests for "conspiracies" that amount to little more than daydreams, and more quashing of dissent? ..."
"... Our history suggests the latter. We Americans have had our flights from democracy -- the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, the Red Scare and the McCarthy era, Watergate -- but we have always pulled back from the brink and returned to normal. ..."
Imagine this situation: Your country has had a military setback in a war that was supposed to be over after a few months of "shock
and awe." Because of that war, it has lost the goodwill and prestige of much of the international community.
The national debt has grown to staggering size. Citizens complain bitterly about the government, especially the legislative branch,
for being a bunch of do-nothings working solely for themselves or for special interest groups. In fact, the political scene has pretty
much lost its center -- moderates are attacked by all sides as the political discourse becomes a clamor of increasingly extreme positions.
It seems there are election campaigns going on all the time, and they are increasingly vicious. The politicians just want to argue
about moral issues -- sexuality, decadent art, the crumbling family and the like -- while pragmatic matters of governance seem neglected.
Sound familiar? That society was Germany of the 1920s -- the ill-fated Weimar Republic. But it also describes more and more the
political climate in America today.
Germans were worried about the future of their country. They suffered from all sorts of terror, as assassinations, coup attempts
and crime pulled their society apart. The left blamed the right; the right blamed the left, and the political center simply dried
up.
To get themselves out of the mess, Germans might have demanded government that carefully mended fences with its allies and enemies;
one that judiciously hammered out compromises among the various political parties and sought the middle path.
But we know that didn't happen. In Germany of the 1920s, as now in 21st-century America, appeals to reason and prudence were no
way to get votes in times of crisis. Much more effective were appeals to the anger and fear of the German people. A politician could
attract more votes by criticizing the government than by praising it, and a vicious negative campaign was usually more effective
than a clean one. One of the problems of democracy is that voters aren't always rational, and appeals like these could be very effective.
As usually happens in times of distress, the Germans became a people for whom resolve was valued more highly than prudence, daring
more than caution, and righteousness more than discretion. In many ways, they were a people not so different from today's Americans.
What was needed, the Germans thought, was a strong leader -- someone who would put an end to politics as usual; most of all, someone
who could unite all the divisions in Germany and dispel the clamor. They found that leader in Adolf Hitler, and for a time, most
Germans were glad they did.
Of course, America is not 1920s Germany, and we are certainly not on the verge of a fascist state. But neither have we experienced
the deep crises the Germans faced. The setbacks of the Iraq/Afghan war are a far cry from the devastating loss of the First World
War; we are not considered the scourge of the international community, and we don't need wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf
of bread. But even in these relatively secure times, we have shown an alarming willingness to choose headstrong leadership over thoughtful
leadership, to value security over liberty; to accept compromises to constitutional principles, and to defy the opinion of the rest
of the world.
How would we react if things got worse? If we were to lose the war in Iraq, leaving a fundamentalist regime in place; if we endured
several more major terrorist attacks; if the economy collapsed; if fuel prices reached $7 per gallon -- would we cling even more
fiercely to our democratic ideals? Or would we instead demand greater surveillance, more secret prisons, more arrests for "conspiracies"
that amount to little more than daydreams, and more quashing of dissent?
Our history suggests the latter. We Americans have had our flights from democracy -- the internment of Japanese-Americans in World
War II, the Red Scare and the McCarthy era, Watergate -- but we have always pulled back from the brink and returned to normal.
The time is coming for us to pull back from the brink again. This must happen before the government gets so strong that it can
completely demonize opposition, gain complete control of the media, and develop dossiers on all its citizens. By then it will be
too late, and we'll have ourselves to blame.
Brian E. Fogarty, a sociology professor at the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul, is the author of "
War, Peace, and the Social
Order ."
Under neoliberalism any regime change is necessary followed by an economic rape. That was the case with the USSR in 1991,
that was the case in Ukraine in 2014. Only the size and length of the looting varies depending of the strength of new government.
Both the size and the length is maximal if in power are marionette like Yeltsin or Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko.
Saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" now should sound as "Beware of Americans who bring you color revolutions." They bring the
economic rape (aka "Disaster
capitalism") as the second phase. That's the nature of neocolonialism -- now you do not need to occupy the country.
It's enough to make it a debt slave using IMF and install compradors to endure the low of money and continuing impoverishment of the
population.
With such crooked and greedy friends as Biden and Kerry and their narcoaddicts sons you do not need enemies. But the main
danger are not individual sharks but Western financial institutions like IMF and World bank. Those convert countries into debt slaves
and that means permanently low standard (Central African in case of Ukraine, something like $2 a day) of living for generations
to come.
What is interesting is that unlike say German nationalists in 30th, the Ukrainian nationalists proved to be completly
useless in defending the Ukraine from looting. They actually serves as supplementary tool of the same looting.
The standard of living of Ukrainians dropped 2-3 times since 2014. How pensioners survive, on $50 a month pension I simply do not
understand. In any case Neoliberalism proved to be very effecting is keeping "developing" nations economic growth down and converting
them into debt slaves. The fact that Biden use loans as a tool of extortion (as in threat to cancel one billion loan) to close criminal
investigation of his sons company is just an icing on the cake. Poroshenko and his camarilla should be tried in the court of law for
his corruption and pandering to the Western sharks, who were happy to steal from Ukraine as much as then can.
To pay $166K a month for Biden's son cocaine is way too much to such impoverished country as Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... " Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat. ..."
"... The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member. ..."
"... U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. - The Hill ..."
"... And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill: ..."
"... The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's case against Burisma; ..."
"... President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 ..."
"... Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse. ..."
"... Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now! ..."
"... At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski. Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified. ..."
"... Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This is basic stuff. ..."
"... Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$. ..."
Originally from:
Forget 'Creepy'
- Biden Has A Major Ukraine Problem Joe Biden appears to have made a major tactical error last year when he bragged to an
audience of foreign policy experts how he threatened to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy if their top prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin,
wasn't immediately fired, according to
The Hill 's John Solomon.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council
on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden's account, though they claim the pressure was applied
over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day . Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine's
parliament obliged by
ending Shokin's tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not
bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired. -
The Hill
And why would Biden want the "son of a bitch" fired?
In what must be an amazing coincidence, the prosecutor was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas
firm - which Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of directors.
The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm
Burisma Holdings
that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers
into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period
when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. -
The Hill
The Hill 's Solomon reviewed the general prosecutor's file for the Burisma probe - which he reports shows Hunter Biden, his business
partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other
crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact
that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he
insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill:
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office
clearly had to know about the general prosecutor's probe of Burisma and his son's role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's
case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden's office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden's role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the
general prosecutor's Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president's office
suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 , after a popular revolution ousted
Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow
sent military forces into Ukraine's Crimea territory.
***
Key questions for 'ol Joe:
Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work
was performed for the money Hunter Biden's firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced
that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who
very publicly pursued Burisma?
Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization
campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding
Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse.
Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin
during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now!
Amazing that all 3 of them are still alive and that "Song Bird" McCain (#4) was allowed to die from his brain cancer instead
of joining them or being dismembered and put on display when he made these visit(s) (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbfsTcJCKDE ) along
with General Vallely (#5)!!!
Taras Bulba , 1 hour ago
At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski.
Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified.
CarifonianSeven, 2 hours ago
Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This
is basic stuff.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy, 1 hour ago
Joe cheated his way through undergrad and law school. He would be unable to understand any of that.
whittler, 1 hour ago
What? You mean folks will finally care about little Hunter hiring Azov neo-Nazi fighters (oops! security I mean) to protect
his fracking site just north of the 'troubles' in the eastern Ukraine? I'm sure they were working for free and that no Biden money
was ever used to payoff (oops again! I mean pay the wages of) a bunch of Nazis (dang it again, I mean neo-Nazis, it sounds so
much warmer and fuzzier when you add 'neo').
Creepy Joe and all D's agree, 'Nazi' = bad, neo-Nazi = warm, fuzzy and good; heck, they even like to kill Russians Russians
Russians!!!
Cracker 16 , 1 hour ago
Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$.
"... When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. ..."
When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are
controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule,
near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent
political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure
to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf
Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us
so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or
(IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about
private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense
Thanks for the Taibbi link. I hadn't seen it, and found him to be in good form. I do think
he ought to have spoken more about how bad Trump's Primary opponents were.
Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted.
Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have
been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in
the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. More on that for people
with strong stomachs:
Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered,
hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been
proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis
on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent.
The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump,
and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya.
"... Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history. It's not only the fact that his administration has been literally taken over by Goldman Sachs, the top vampire-bank of the Wall Street mafia. ..."
"... The 'anti-establishment Trump' joke has already collapsed and the US middle class is about be eliminated by the syndicate of the united billionaires under Trump administration. ..."
"... Paul Singer whose nickname is "the vulture", he didn't get that nickname because he is a sweet an honest businessman. This is the guy who closed the Delphi auto plants in Ohio and sent them to China and also to Monterrey-Mexico. Donald Trump as a candidate, excoriated the billionaires who sent Delphi auto parts company down to Mexico ..."
"... Paul Singer has two concerns: one of them is that we eliminate the banking regulations known as Dodd–Frank. He is called 'the vulture' cause he eats companies that died. He has invested heavily in banks that died. He makes his billions from government bail-outs, he has never made a product in his life, it's all money and billions made from your money, out of the US treasury ..."
"... The Mercers are the real big money behind Donald Trump. When Trump was in trouble in the general election he was out of money and he was out of ideas and he was losing. It was the Mercers, Robert, who is the principal at the Renaissance Technologies, basically investment banking sharks, that's all they are. They are market gamblers and banking sharks, and that's how he made his billions, he hasn't created a single job as Donald Trump himself like to mention. ..."
"... Both the vulture and the Mercers, they don't pay the same taxes as the rest. They don't pay regular income taxes. They have a special billionaires loophole called 'carried interest'. ..."
"... They were two candidates who said that they would close that loophole: one was Bernie Sanders and the other, believe it or not, was Donald Trump, it was part of his populist movie, he said ' These Wall Street sharks, they don't build anything, they don't create a single job, when they lose we pay, when they win, they get a tax-break called carried interest. I will close that loophole. ' Has he said a word about that loophole? It passed away. ..."
Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history. It's
not only the fact that his administration has been literally taken over by Goldman Sachs, the top vampire-bank of the Wall Street
mafia.
Recently, Trump announced another big alliance with the vulture billionaire, Paul Singer, who, initially, was supposedly against
him. It looks like the Trump big show continues.
The 'anti-establishment Trump' joke has already collapsed and the US middle class is about be eliminated by the syndicate of the
united billionaires under Trump administration.
As Greg Palast told to Thom Hartmann:
Paul Singer whose nickname is "the vulture", he didn't get that nickname because he is a sweet an honest businessman. This
is the guy who closed the Delphi auto plants in Ohio and sent them to China and also to Monterrey-Mexico. Donald Trump as a candidate,
excoriated the billionaires who sent Delphi auto parts company down to Mexico.
Paul Singer has two concerns: one of them is that we eliminate the banking regulations known as Dodd–Frank. He is called 'the
vulture' cause he eats companies that died. He has invested heavily in banks that died. He makes his billions from government bail-outs,
he has never made a product in his life, it's all money and billions made from your money, out of the US treasury.
He is against what Obama created, which is a system under Dodd–Frank, called 'living wills', where if a bank starts going bankrupt,
they don't call the US treasury for bail-out. These banks go out of business and they are broken up so we don't have to pay for the
bail-out. Singer wants to restore the system of bailouts because that's where he makes his money.
The Mercers are the real big money behind Donald Trump. When Trump was in trouble in the general election he was out of money
and he was out of ideas and he was losing. It was the Mercers, Robert, who is the principal at the Renaissance Technologies, basically
investment banking sharks, that's all they are. They are market gamblers and banking sharks, and that's how he made his billions,
he hasn't created a single job as Donald Trump himself like to mention.
Both the vulture and the Mercers, they don't pay the same taxes as the rest. They don't pay regular income taxes. They have a
special billionaires loophole called 'carried interest'.
They were two candidates who said that they would close that loophole: one
was Bernie Sanders and the other, believe it or not, was Donald Trump, it was part of his populist movie, he said ' These Wall
Street sharks, they don't build anything, they don't create a single job, when they lose we pay, when they win, they get a tax-break
called carried interest. I will close that loophole. ' Has he said a word about that loophole? It passed away.
His political activities include funding the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and he has written against raising taxes
for the 1% and aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act. Singer is active in Republican Party politics and collectively, Singer and others affiliated
with Elliott Management are "the top source of contributions" to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist", largely on account of his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture
fund. Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going
after countries for unpaid debts", and in 1996, Singer began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in or near
default-such as Argentina, ]- through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through Kensington International Inc. Singer's
business model of purchasing distressed debt from companies and sovereign states and pursuing full payment through the courts has
led to criticism, while Singer and EMC defend their model as "a fight against charlatans who refuse to play by the market's rules."
In 1996, Elliott bought defaulted Peruvian debt for $11.4 million. Elliott won a $58 million judgment when the ruling was overturned
in 2000, and Peru had to repay the sum in full under the pari passu rule. When former president of Peru Alberto Fujimori was attempting
to flee the country due to facing legal proceedings over human rights abuses and corruption, Singer ordered the confiscation of his
jet and offered to let him leave the country in exchange for the $58 million payment from the treasury, an offer which Fujimori accepted.
A subsequent 2002 investigation by the Government of Peru into the incident and subsequent congressional report, uncovered instances
of corruption since Elliott was not legally authorized to purchase the Peruvian debt from Swiss Bank Corporation without the prior
approval of the Peruvian government, and thus the purchase had occurred in breach of contract. At the same time, Elliott's representative,
Jaime Pinto, had been formerly employed by the Peruvian Ministry of Economy and Finance and had contact with senior officials. According
to the Wall Street Journal, the Peruvian government paid Elliott $56 million to settle the case.
After Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2002, the Elliott-owned company NML Capital Limited refused to accept the Argentine offer
to pay less than 30 cents per dollar of debt. With a face value of $630 million, the bonds were reportedly bought by NML for $48
million, with Elliott assessing the bonds as worth $2.3 billion with accrued interest. Elliott sued Argentina for the debt's value,
and the lower UK courts found that Argentina had state immunity. Elliott successfully appealed the case to the UK Supreme Court,
which ruled that Elliott had the right to attempt to seize Argentine property in the United Kingdom. Alternatively, before 2011,
US courts ruled against allowing creditors to seize Argentine state assets in the United States. On October 2, 2012 Singer arranged
for a Ghanaian Court order to detain the Argentine naval training vessel ARA Libertad in a Ghanaian port, with the vessel to be used
as collateral in an effort to force Argentina to pay the debt. Refusing to pay, Argentina shortly thereafter regained control of
the ship after its seizure was deemed illegal by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Alleging the incident lost Tema
Harbour $7.6 million in lost revenue and unpaid docking fees, Ghana in 2012 was reportedly considering legal action against NML for
the amount.
His firm... is so influential that fear of its tactics helped shape the current 2012 Greek debt restructuring." Elliott was termed
by The Independent as "a pioneer in the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid
debts", and in 1996, Singer began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in or near default-such as Argentina,
Peru-through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through Kensington International Inc. In 2004, then first deputy managing
director of the International Monetary Fund Anne Osborn Krueger denounced the strategy, alleging that it has "undermined the entire
structure of sovereign finance."
we wrote that " Trump's rhetoric is concentrated around a racist delirium. He avoids to take direct position
on social matters, issues about inequality, etc. Of course he does, he is a billionaire! Trump will follow the pro-establishment
agenda of protecting Wall Street and big businesses. And here is the fundamental difference with Bernie Sanders. Bernie says no more
war and he means it. He says more taxes for the super-rich and he means it. Free healthcare and education for all the Americans,
and he means it. In case that Bernie manage to beat Hillary, the establishment will definitely turn to Trump who will be supported
by all means until the US presidency. "
Yet, we would never expect that Trump would verify us, that fast.
"... What in the world is a fascist Jew? Well, in this case, it is someone who uses violent methods to realize the logical consequences of Zionism -- if Israel is a "Jewish state," then non-Jews must go. How they ultimately go has been left an open-ended question, though Israel is engaged in a continuous effort to destroy Palestinian infrastructure . Fascist Jews advocate expulsion of all Palestinians and sometimes engage in direct violence -- akin to classic pogroms -- in an effort to fulfill this goal. ..."
"... The "migration" of Israeli Jews to the right has narrowed the gap between the majority of "ordinary" citizens and the fascists. So, back into favor come the Kahanists. ..."
An article published
in the Israeli news
blog
+972
on 19 November 2018
posed
the question: Why does the right keep winning
elections in Israel? The answer offered was "because
Israelis are right wing." Simple enough, and
apparently, quite true. The article estimates that
over half of Israeli Jews think of themselves as
"right wing." Self-defined centrists are about 25
percent, and those Israeli Jews who still cling to
"leftist" ideals are now only about 15 percent of
the population. The remainder are non-committal.
This movement to the right is often blamed on the
Palestinians, but that is largely an evasion. As the
story goes, it was the
Second
Intifada
(occurring from late 2000 to early
2005) that so scared a majority of Israeli Jews that
it "
led
to a migration
of left-wingers to the
political center [and] centrists [to the] right,
causing the percentage of Jewish right-wingers to
drift upward over the decade." While the "migration
to the right" has certainly taken place, it is
better understood as follows: under Palestinian
pressure for democratic reforms and justice, along
with corresponding resistance to oppression, Israeli
Jews who could not face the prospect of real
democracy had nowhere politically to go than to the
right -- what should properly be described as the
racist right. And, so they went. From this point on
there was no more obfuscation -- Israeli "security" is
now clearly a stand-in phrase for the maintenance of
Israeli Jewish domination over non-Jews.
Enter the Fascists
The present shifting about on Israel's political
landscape prior to its April 2019 elections confirms
this basically rightwing racist scene. Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affirmed that Israel is
"the national state,
not
of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people
."
A minority of Israeli Jews might denounce such
racism, but Israel's recently adopted nationality
law states that the right of national
self-determination in Israel is "unique to the
Jewish people." And whether the "left" acknowledges
the fact or not, this law is in perfect sync with
Zionist ideology.
It should be noted that the prime minister's
personal preference is not for "the Jewish people"
as a whole. Indeed, in his eyes,
if
you are an anti-Zionist Jew you are an anti-Semitic
Jew
-- whatever that might mean. The prime minister
is more comfortable with Jews of the fascist, racist
right, with whom he has so much in common. This is
the kind of Jew he has politically allied with.
What in the world is a fascist Jew? Well, in
this case, it is someone who uses violent methods
to realize the logical consequences of Zionism -- if
Israel is a "Jewish state," then non-Jews must go.
How they ultimately go has been left an open-ended
question, though Israel is engaged in a continuous
effort
to destroy Palestinian infrastructure
. Fascist
Jews advocate expulsion of all Palestinians and
sometimes
engage
in direct violence
-- akin to classic pogroms -- in an
effort to fulfill this goal.
You might shake your head in wonderment at the
notion of Jewish fascists, but they have always been
an important element in Zionist history. You can
trace their activity from Vladimir Jabotinsky and
his
notion of an "iron wall"
(1923) that would force
the Palestinians to acquiesce in Zionist domination,
right up to
Meir
Kahane, an advocate of expulsion
, and his Kach
Party (1971-1990). It is Kahane's followers who now
are political partners of Netanyahu.
The "migration"
of Israeli Jews to the right
has
narrowed the gap
between the majority of
"ordinary" citizens and the fascists. So, back into
favor come the Kahanists.
What is an Israeli Centrist?
Nor should we look for anti-racist activism among
the 25 percent who see themselves as centrists.
Presently, those who seek to capture the centrist
vote are Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid. Gantz is former
chief-of-staff and a man who is being sued for war
crimes. He is leader of the Israeli Resilience Party
(Hosen Israel). That party has allied with Yair
Lapid, a former TV celebrity, and his There is a
future Party (Yesh Atid).
Both of these politicians
call
themselves "new centrists"
and concentrate their
platforms on "socio-economic issues such as the cost
of living." However, when it comes to the
Palestinians, neither of them are interested in a
democratic Israel that would afford non-Jews equal
rights -- nothing particularly "new" here for
"centrists." Gantz is the classic military maven so
prevalent in Israeli politics. Here is his view of
where "resilience" should take Israel relative to
the Palestinians: "The Jordan Valley will remain our
eastern security border," Gantz declared. "We will
maintain security in the entire Land of Israel we
will not allow the millions of Palestinians living
beyond the separation fence to endanger our security
and our identity as a Jewish state." For someone who
is campaigning on the theme that, under its present
government, "
Israel
has lost its way
," Gantz's intentions in this
regard are remarkably similar to those of Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Yair Lapid's position
on the Palestinians is
little different from that of Gantz. He says that
"we need to separate from the Palestinians," as if
Israeli Jews haven't been doing just that for the
past 71 years. He goes on to demand that all issues
of security have to "stay in Israel's hands," there
is no such thing as a "right of return," and
Jerusalem will not be divided into two capitals.
On the Palestinian issue -- the one that now divides
Israel from increasing numbers of citizens in the
democratic world -- there is little difference between
the Israeli rightists and the centrists except that
the latter do not publicly talk about the forceful
expulsion.
That approximately 85 percent of Israeli Jews
should end up unwilling to grant equal rights to the
20 percent of Palestinians who are their segregated
neighbors; that they should support, or at best not
act against the relentless, vicious process of
illegal settlement in the Occupied Territories; and
finally that they should react to Palestinian
resistance to Zionist oppression by "migrating" to
the right, is both tragic and predictable.
It must be realized that any country that allows
racism to rule its public sphere cannot pass itself
off as a democracy. It is simply a contradiction.
The Zionist experiment looking toward a democratic
Jewish state might have gone differently if it had
been tried somewhere devoid of a non-Jewish
population (like the moon), but then, in the end,
the Zionists became obsessed with Palestine, fell in
with the colonial mentality still prevalent during
the first half of the twentieth century, and have
never progressed beyond it.
To this point, I beg the reader's patience as I
repeat an argument I have made more than once in
past analyses: It is impossible to create a state
exclusively for one people (call them people A) in a
territory already populated by another people (call
them people B) without the eventual adoption of
racist policies by A and eventual resistance on the
part of B. Under such circumstances, for A, there
can be no real security, nor can there be anything
like a healthy national culture.
Indeed, unless a majority of Israeli Jews are
willing to go the route of South Africa and renounce
their program of discriminatory dominion over
millions of non-Jews, they have nowhere else to go
but head-first into the hell that is the racist
right. With 85 percent sharing, or at least
acquiescing, in the views of Netanyahu, Gantz, and
Lapid, the chances for redemption do not look good.
In fact, it is probably the case that the "light
unto the nations" has long since gone out.
"President typically take pains to ensure the Pentagon is being
run by Senate confirmed official" .Presidents typically don't put incompetent people in cabinet positions or give his kids top security
level clearances when they have no need and no experience that requires one...well, no one has accused trump of being presidential
or typical - ever
Dianna 4 hours ago
The swamp is now the " Trump Cesspool."
Nonconservative 3 hours ago
Hey deplorables....hows that swamp draining going?...ANYWORD on that great big beautiful health plan with lower premiums and keeping my own doctor?....what about infrastructure?...any
idea when the roads in every city will be driveable again...or did we spend all the money from the US govt. paying Trump to stay
at his own hotels?........hello?......hello deplorables?......anybody home????
Pierre Escargot 1 hour ago
Pentagon to probe if Shanahan used office
to help Boeing. Why not? Robert Mueller's and James Comey turned government service into self-service.
Foreign policy is no longer controlled by the President of the USA. It is controlled by the Deep state.
This article is from 2015 but can easily be written about Trump administration
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis communautaire). ..."
"... First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state" officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way? ..."
"... In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe, while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule". ..."
"... Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently in Ukraine. ..."
"... Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all. ..."
"... Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant, ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. ..."
"... Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. ..."
"... Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine – Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. ..."
"... 'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'. ..."
"... "We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED] ..."
Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy... European
democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
The avalanche of commentary since the Ukrainian crisis erupted a year ago has overshadowed any reflections on the immense forgone
benefits (technically speaking, the "opportunity cost") of what might have been if Washington had been working for peace and stability
instead of war and chaos.
Imagine the following: After the unraveling of the Communist bloc, Europe, in partnership with the US, had forged a new security
system in which Russia was treated as a valued and equal partner – one whose interests were respected. Russia, decimated by a century
of wars and Communist imperialism, would doubtless have eagerly reciprocated in kind. Most countries of the former Soviet Union would
have then proceeded to build a new Eurasian structure of which Russia would have served as the natural umbrella, given its long-standing
interaction with the region's diverse nations and cultures.
Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the
pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis
communautaire).
The rising Far Eastern economic powerhouse, with the world's most populous country, China, at its centre, would have linked up
with the world's largest economy (the EU). An enormous Eurasian production and financial bloc would have been created – one that
drew primarily on secure supplies of Russian energy and other natural resources. Untold investment opportunities would have opened
up in Siberia and Russia's Far East as well as in Central Asia. Hundreds of millions of people in Eurasia and elsewhere would have
been lifted out of poverty. And, not least, the EU would have been refashioned as an integral part of the dynamic trans-Eurasian
economy (rather than as a German-centred empire, as appears to be the case today), thereby making a major contribution to overcoming
the ongoing global economic depression.
All of this was not to be, however. Why not? First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a
mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state"
officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to
get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way?
European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started
churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe,
while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule".
Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently
in Ukraine.
And in what is eerily reminiscent of Stalinist "bloc discipline", the EU/NATO nomenclature was ordered to implement the absurd
strategy of severing the Russian economy from the EU. For their part, the cowering Eurocrats willingly obliged by imposing sanctions
on Russia that, perversely, have had a negative impact on their own economies (but, let it be stressed, not that of the US). No questions
raised and no public debate on the wisdom of such a strategy permitted.
Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view
that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil
and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all.
This abuse and humiliation of Europe is unparalleled. The continent that gave the world the wonders of the Antiquity, modern democracy,
the industrial revolution and what is arguably the greatest tradition of philosophy, fine arts and classical music is being bullied
by its oversized offspring. Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant,
ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. War and extermination
camps are etched into the European DNA. America "knows" about them only from afar – and, not least, from the Hollywood entertainment
industry.
Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior
Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. The so-called European "leaders" are colluding with them in plunging
Europe into the abyss and thereby risking nuclear confrontation.
America, too, is a loser
But this is not just a tragedy for Europe and Eurasia. We are also witnessing the wilful misrule of America and, by default, of
the entire West. Indeed, Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy. The
"democracy-promoters" running Washington's foreign-policy apparatus apparently do not understand that America has nothing to lose
and a lot to gain from the Eurasian economic project: the rising tide of global economic welfare would lift everyone's boats, including
its own. Why should it matter to Washington if the rising tide comes from other quarters beyond its control?
Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine
– Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. If it continues to support such
forces against Russia, united Europe will lose not only its backbone but its very soul. The moral consequences of this loss will
be enormous and could lead to the precipitous erosion of Western democracy.
The 'autocrats' want to work with the West, not against it
US and EU leaders believe that the Russian and Chinese "autocrats" are out to destroy the West because the latter hate freedom
(as George W. Bush might have put it). And hence, they argue, the autocrats must be stopped in their tracks. The simple truth is
that Western leaders are too blinkered to understand that far from desiring to destroy the West, Russia and China want it to prosper
so that they can work with it to everyone's benefit. Having enjoyed a privileged position over several centuries and having attained
unprecedented prosperity in recent decades, the West simply cannot understand that the rest of humanity has no interest in fomenting
the "clash of civilizations" but rather craves peace and stability so that it can finally improve its economic lot.
Perhaps, however, all is not yet lost. It is still possible that reason – and economic forces – will prevail and force the West
to correct the errors of its ways. What we need, perhaps, more than ever is the ability to step out of the box, question our fundamental
assumptions (not least about Russia and China) and find the courage to change policies that have proved disastrous. After all, critical
thought, dispassionate analysis and the ability to be open to new ideas is what made the West so successful in the past. If we are
to thrive once again in the future, we must resurrect these most valuable and unsurpassed assets.
What I cannot understand is the naive belief that elected politicians would act in the interests of those whom they represent.
Under what other circumstances do we see human beings act with disinterested altruism? So why would a bunch of people who have
been ruthlessly selected for selfishness, arrogance, and callousness - a bunch of carefully chosen psychopaths, if you will -
behave in that way?
'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to
my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign
aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to
us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'.
- Paul Craig Roberts
jabirujoe
"Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy".
Not only it's foreign policy but it's domestic policy as well. Let's call it for what it really is. The Wall Street/Corporate
policy which is the driving force behind behind everything the US does
Toddrich
"We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
"When we're done with the U.S. it will shrivel up and blow away." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
The welfare or future of the American people are not part of the equation.
Is this a plan of the elite to introduce national security state in action. Are they afraid of the collapse of neoliberal social
order and try to take precautions?
Notable quotes:
"... These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. ..."
"... the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. ..."
"... Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse. ..."
"... no molten metal ..."
"... A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." ..."
"... Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants. Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories : ..."
"... Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be? ..."
"... Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000. ..."
"... Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way. ..."
"... All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies, and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified). ..."
"... This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down. ..."
"... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report ..."
"... There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area. ..."
"... The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened at WTC. ..."
"... If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless. ..."
"... Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt. It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob. ..."
"... The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. ..."
What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?
Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the
official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates
the law of physics":
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked
into as part of the original investigation
Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural
engineering experience:
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that
windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those
explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building
from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience,
says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite
in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition
Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with
over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident
Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience
in all types of buildings:
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings [please ignore any reference in this essay to the
Twin Towers. This essay focuses solely on Building 7]. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were
imploded
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis,
writes:
Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day [i.e. on September
11th]? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses
including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust
WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This
is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized
therefore what is the cause?
In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by
any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation
How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading?
The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.
***
Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual
members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just
as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would
have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity,
i.e., strength and stiffness.
Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching
its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity started to weaken, the superstructure
above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist
toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur.
Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping
of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.
For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse .
We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity
loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse
at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high
rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled
demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should
normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated
to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?
Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience
in building design
Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers this essay
focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11,
unless proven otherwise
James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force,
instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer
and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire.
This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living
David Anthony Dorau, practicing structural
engineer with 18 years' experience in the inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a policy analyst
for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on technological
matters
Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings
and other types of structures
The above is just a sample. Many other structural
engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:
The top European expert on controlled building demolition, Danny Jowenko (part
1, part 2,
part 3)
Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President
of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute
of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies
Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran
U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam –
says:
The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to
cause the buildings to implode as they did
Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or
any other topics other than WTC7):
Fish In a Barrel
Poking holes in the government's spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was
no molten metal at ground zero:
And see witness statements at the beginning of this video
Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was evaporated. As the New York Times
reports, an expert
stated about World Trade Center building 7:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers
said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated
in extraordinarily high temperatures.
(pay-per-view). Evaporation means conversion from a liquid
to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate
them
Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants.
Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the
U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratories:
Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as
rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 .
"Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was
pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you
were creating a giant lake."
This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:
The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of
massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman's claim is.
Again, this has nothing to do with "inside job" no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on
a rallying cry of "remember the Solomon Brothers building", and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent
future WTC7 tragedies.
It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.
Pooua > Wolfen Batroach • 2 years ago
Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were
the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be?
JusticeFor911 > Pooua
Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002,
Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was
only $386,000,000.
I'd say nearly half of $1,000,000,000.00 was the primary cause to include this building with the towers. Keep in mind that
President Bush's brother Marvin was a principal in the company Securacom that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines and
Dulles International Airport. Are dots connecting yet?
Pooua > JusticeFor911
If you buy a new car, you take out full coverage insurance on it. Insuring billion-dollar buildings is standard procedure,
especially when one had already suffered a terrorist attack. You insinuation is nothing but gossip and suggestion.
No, Securacom did not provide security for WTC; that's the job of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Securacom had a contract to
perform a limited service for PANYNJ, and Marvin Bush was only a bit player (he was on the board of directors) in the company.
Your paranoid ramblings are lies.
IBSHILLIN > Pooua
Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if
an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could
be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way.
All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies,
and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never
clarified).
This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down.
Pooua > IBSHILLIN
I find it amazing that you consider yourself such an unquestionable expert that you not only feel qualified to insist that
explosives brought down the WTC buildings, even in contradiction to scores of scientists, engineers and investigators of NIST,
FEMA, FBI and MIT who say otherwise, and you do so without offering any evidence at all to support your bizarre claim.
No building the size of any of the WTC buildings has ever been brought down by controlled demolition, but of those that come
closest, the planning took years, and the rigging took months of hard work by teams of experts working around the clock. This
is not something that can be hidden.
Your suggestion is entirely preposterous and without merit.
NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT are worthless entities! What about the experts in that documentary? Nanothermite brought them down
smart guy!
Pooua > ihaveabrain • 25 days ago
You posted a 1.5-hour video. I am not here to watch a 1.5-hour video; I'm here to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC
7. If you have something to say, say it here.
NIST has been the premier standards body used by the US government for a century, covering virtually every aspect of engineering
and public safety in this country. It employes thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians. For you to claim that it is
a worthless entity is idiocy on your part.
linked1 > Pooua • 24 days ago
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video
that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully
flawed NIST report
You claim to want to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC-7 but you can't be bothered to watch painstakingly researched
documentaries that include thousands of witnesses, victims, scientists, and structural professionals.
You ought to educate yourself before calling other's claims 'worthless idiocy'. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong.
Pooua > linked1
I've been reading arguments about 9/11 for two years. I've been arguing about other issues for the last 25 years, at least
since I took a class in classical logic. What you need to understand is, you aren't arguing anything when you send me off to listen
to someone else. The other guy might be arguing something, but you aren't doing anything. And, the fact that I've spent two years
reading everything I could find on the subject makes me strongly suspect that this five-hour video would be just a waste of my
time.
If you want to discuss this matter, then discuss it. Don't send me off to spend hours of my time listening to someone else.
You explain it. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it, and you are wasting everyone's time.
mulegino1 . > Pooua
The levels of energy required to turn most of the Twin Towers and WTC7 into nanoparticles (thus the pyrocastic flow which only
occurs in volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations) would be thousands of orders of magnitude greater than airliner impacts
and hydrocarbon based office fires, which are claimed to have initiated a "gravity collapse".
How could a "gravity collapse" perfectly mimic the detonation of a small tactical nuclear device or devices-electromagnetic
pulse, molten lava and a mushroom cloud?
Pooua > mulegino1
I want you to look at this image from the WTC on 9/11. It shows the debris after the Towers collapsed. Does this look like
nanoparticles to you? Most of the debris was bigger than a man's fist.
Thumbnail
There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something
that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area.
The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what
happened at WTC.
mulegino1 . > Pooua
If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless.
There was indeed a pyroclasticas flow as anyone with youtube can determine for themselves.
Pooua > WilliamBinney • a year ago
It is your job to do more than make idiotic, speculative assertions and pretend that constitutes a reason for disregarding
the government's account of the event. Yet, you all have completely failed to do anything except expose your own inability to
account for the events of that day.
Dizzer13 > Pooua • a year ago
Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt.
It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob.
mulegino1 . > Pooua • 2 years ago
The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose
information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
The official narrative is so ludicrous from any standpoint that the "debunkers" resort to wildly implausible scenarios in order
to convince the above cited demographic that the government and the major national media were reporting factual information when
in fact they were reading from a script. And it was a very poorly written script. The Bin Laden bogeyman was already being invoked
before the buildings exploded.
What you've got here is a pseudo-religious narrative designed to so enrage the dumbed down sheeple that they will lash out
in their fury against virtually anyone designated by the powers that be as the enemy- a Sorelian myth.
Like any false narrative, the official story breaks down at the level of discrete facts and can only survive as a holistic
mythologized, meta-historical events.
Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services?
Notable quotes:
"... Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services? ..."
"... "Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5." ..."
"... Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of "one of Britain's most distinguished journals" as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll. ..."
"... The heart of the secret state they identified as the security services, the cabinet office and upper echelons of the Home and Commonwealth Offices, the armed forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries together a network of senior civil servants. ..."
"... As "satellites" of the secret state, their list included "agents of influence in the media, ranging from actual agents of the security services, conduits of official leaks, to senior journalists merely lusting after official praise and, perhaps, a knighthood at the end of their career". ..."
"... Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service's unit liasing with the French resistance. ..."
Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services? The following extracts are from
an article at the excellent Medialens
And so to Nottingham University (on Sunday 26 February) for a well-attended conference...
I focus in my talk on the links between journalists and the intelligence services: While it might be difficult to identify precisely
the impact of the spooks (variously represented in the press as "intelligence", "security", "Whitehall" or "Home Office" sources)
on mainstream politics and media, from the limited evidence it looks to be enormous.
As Roy Greenslade, media specialist at the Telegraph (formerly the Guardian), commented:
"Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5."
Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of "one of Britain's most distinguished
journals" as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll.
And in 1991, Richard Norton-Taylor revealed in the Guardian that 500 prominent Britons paid by the CIA and the now defunct
Bank of Commerce and Credit International, included 90 journalists.
In their analysis of the contemporary secret state, Dorril and Ramsay gave the media a crucial role. The heart of the secret
state they identified as the security services, the cabinet office and upper echelons of the Home and Commonwealth Offices, the armed
forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries together a network of senior civil servants.
As "satellites" of the secret state, their list included "agents of influence in the media, ranging from actual agents of
the security services, conduits of official leaks, to senior journalists merely lusting after official praise and, perhaps, a knighthood
at the end of their career".
Phillip Knightley, author of a seminal history of the intelligence services, has even claimed that at least one intelligence agent
is working on every Fleet Street newspaper.
A brief history
Going as far back as 1945, George Orwell no less became a war correspondent for the Observer - probably as a
cover for intelligence work. Significantly most of the men he met in Paris on his assignment, Freddie Ayer, Malcolm Muggeridge, Ernest
Hemingway were either working for the intelligence services or had close links to them.
Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf
of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service's unit liasing with the French resistance.
The release of Public Record Office documents in 1995 about some of the operations of the MI6-financed propaganda unit, the
Information Research Department of the Foreign Office, threw light on this secret body - which even Orwell aided
by sending them a list of "crypto-communists". Set up by the Labour government in 1948, it "ran" dozens of Fleet Street journalists
and a vast array of news agencies across the globe until it was closed down by Foreign Secretary David Owen in 1977.
According to John Pilger in the anti-colonial struggles in Kenya, Malaya and Cyprus, IRD was so successful that the journalism
served up as a record of those episodes was a cocktail of the distorted and false in which the real aims and often atrocious behaviour
of the British intelligence agencies was hidden.
And spy novelist John le Carré, who worked for MI6 between 1960 and 1964, has made the amazing statement that the British secret
service then controlled large parts of the press – just as they may do today.
In 1975, following Senate hearings on the CIA, the reports of the Senate's Church Committee and the House of Representatives'
Pike Committee highlighted the extent of agency recruitment of both British and US journalists.
And sources revealed that half the foreign staff of a British daily were on the MI6 payroll.
David Leigh, in The Wilson Plot, his seminal study of the way in which the secret service smeared through the mainstream media
and destabilised the Government of Harold Wilson before his sudden resignation in 1976, quotes an MI5 officer: "We have somebody
in every office in Fleet Street"
Leaker King
And the most famous whistleblower of all, Peter (Spycatcher) Wright, revealed that MI5 had agents in newspapers and publishing
companies whose main role was to warn them of any forthcoming "embarrassing publications".
Wright also disclosed that the Daily Mirror tycoon, Cecil King, "was a longstanding agent of ours" who "made it clear
he would publish anything MI5 might care to leak in his direction".
Selective details about Wilson and his secretary, Marcia Falkender, were leaked by the intelligence services to sympathetic Fleet
Street journalists. Wright comments: "No wonder Wilson was later to claim that he was the victim of a plot". King was also closely
involved in a scheme in 1968 to oust Prime Minister Harold Wilson and replace him with a coalition headed by Lord Mountbatten.
Hugh Cudlipp, editorial director of the Mirror from 1952 to 1974, was also closely linked to intelligence, according
to Chris Horrie, in his recently published history of the newspaper.
David Walker, the Mirror's foreign correspondent in the 1950s, was named as an MI6 agent following a security
scandal while another Mirror journalist, Stanley Bonnet, admitted working for MI5 in the 1980s investigating the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament.
Maxwell and Mossad
According to Stephen Dorril, intelligence gathering during the miners' strike of 1984-85 was helped by the fact that during the
1970s MI5's F Branch had made a special effort to recruit industrial correspondents – with great success.
In 1991, just before his mysterious death, Mirror proprietor Robert Maxwell was accused by the US investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh of acting for Mossad, the Israeli secret service, though Dorril suggests his links with MI6
were equally as strong.
Following the resignation from the Guardian of Richard Gott, its literary editor in December 1994 in the wake of allegations that
he was a paid agent of the KGB, the role of journalists as spies suddenly came under the media spotlight – and many of the leaks
were fascinating.
For instance, according to The Times editorial of 16 December 1994: "Many British journalists benefited from CIA or MI6 largesse
during the Cold War."
The intimate links between journalists and the secret services were highlighted in the autobiography of the eminent newscaster
Sandy Gall. He reports without any qualms how, after returning from one of his reporting assignments to Afghanistan, he was asked
to lunch by the head of MI6. "It was very informal, the cook was off so we had cold meat and salad with plenty of wine. He wanted
to hear what I had to say about the war in Afghanistan. I was flattered, of course, and anxious to pass on what I could in terms
of first-hand knowledge."
And in January 2001, the renegade MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, claimed Dominic Lawson, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph
and son of the former Tory chancellor, Nigel Lawson, provided journalistic cover for an MI6 officer on a mission to the Baltic to
handle and debrief a young Russian diplomat who was spying for Britain.
Lawson strongly denied the allegations.
Similarly in the reporting of Northern Ireland, there have been longstanding concerns over security service disinformation. Susan
McKay, Northern editor of the Dublin-based Sunday Tribune, has criticised the reckless reporting of material from "dodgy security
services". She told a conference in Belfast in January 2003 organised by the National Union of Journalists and the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission: "We need to be suspicious when people are so ready to provide information and that we are, in fact, not
being used." (www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=635)
Growing power of secret state
Thus from this evidence alone it is clear there has been a long history of links between hacks and spooks in both the UK and US.
But as the secret state grows in power, through massive resourcing, through a whole raft of legislation – such as the Official
Secrets Act, the anti-terrorism legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and so on – and as intelligence moves into
the heart of Blair's ruling clique so these links are even more significant.
Since September 11 all of Fleet Street has been awash in warnings by anonymous intelligence sources of terrorist threats.
According to former Labour minister Michael Meacher, much of this disinformation was spread via sympathetic journalists by
the Rockingham cell within the MoD.
A parallel exercise, through the office of Special Plans, was set up by Donald Rumsfeld in the US. Thus there have been constant
attempts to scare people – and justify still greater powers for the national security apparatus.
Similarly the disinformation about Iraq's WMD was spread by dodgy intelligence sources via gullible journalists.
Thus, to take just one example, Michael Evans, The Times defence correspondent, reported on 29 November 2002: "Saddam Hussein
has ordered hundred of his officials to conceal weapons of mass destruction components in their homes to evade the prying eyes of
the United Nations inspectors." The source of these "revelations" was said to be "intelligence picked up from within Iraq". Early
in 2004, as the battle for control of Iraq continued with mounting casualties on both sides, it was revealed that many of the lies
about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD had been fed to sympathetic journalists in the US, Britain and Australia by the exile group,
the Iraqi National Congress.
Sexed up – and missed out
During the controversy that erupted following the end of the "war" and the death of the arms inspector Dr David Kelly (and the
ensuing Hutton inquiry) the spotlight fell on BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and the claim by one of his sources that the government
(in collusion with the intelligence services) had "sexed up" a dossier justifying an attack on Iraq.
The Hutton inquiry, its every twist and turn massively covered in the mainstream media, was the archetypal media spectacle that
drew attention from the real issue: why did the Bush and Blair governments invade Iraq in the face of massive global opposition?
But those facts will be forever secret.
Significantly, too, the broader and more significant issue of mainstream journalists' links with the intelligence services was
ignored by the inquiry.
Significantly, on 26 May 2004, the New York Times carried a 1,200-word editorial admitting it had been duped in its coverage of
WMD in the lead-up to the invasion by dubious Iraqi defectors, informants and exiles (though it failed to lay any blame on the US
President: see Greenslade 2004). Chief among The Times' dodgy informants was Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress
and Pentagon favourite before his Baghdad house was raided by US forces on 20 May.
Then, in the Observer of 30 May 2004, David Rose admitted he had been the victim of a "calculated set-up" devised to foster the
propaganda case for war. "In the 18 months before the invasion of March 2003, I dealt regularly with Chalabi and the INC and published
stories based on interviews with men they said were defectors from Saddam's regime." And he concluded: "The information fog is thicker
than in any previous war, as I know now from bitter personal experience. To any journalist being offered apparently sensational disclosures,
especially from an anonymous intelligence source, I offer two words of advice: caveat emptor."
Let's not forget no British newspaper has followed the example of the NYT and apologised for being so easily duped by the intelligence
services in the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.
~
Richard Keeble's publications include Secret State, Silent Press: New Militarism, the Gulf and the Modern Image of Warfare (John
Libbey 1997) and The Newspapers Handbook (Routledge, fourth edition, 2005). He is also the editor of Ethical Space: The International
Journal of Communication Ethics. Richard is also a member of the War and Media Network.
"... General Electric, the world's largest military contractor, still controls the message over at the so-called "liberal" MSNBC. MSNBC's other owner is Comcast, the right wing media conglomerate that controls the radio waves in every major American Market. Over at CNN, Mossad Asset Wolf Blitzer, who rose from being an obscure little correspondent for an Israeli Newspaper to being CNN's Chief "Pentagon Correspondent" and then was elevated to supreme anchorman nearly as quickly, ensures that the pro-Israeli Message is always in the forefront, even as the Israeli's commit one murderous act after another upon helpless Palestinian Women and Children. ..."
"... Every single "terrorism expert", General or former Government Official that is brought out to discuss the next great war is connected to a military contractor that stands to benefit from that war. Not surprisingly, the military option is the only option discussed and we are assured that, if only we do this or bomb that, then it will all be over and we can bring our kids home to a big victory parade. I'm 63 and it has never happened in my lifetime--with the exception of the phony parade that Bush Senior put on after his murderous little "First Gulf War". ..."
"... The Generals in the Pentagon always want war. It is how they make rank. All of those young kids that just graduated from our various academies know that war experience is the only thing that will get them the advancement that they seek in the career that they have chosen. They are champing at the bit for more war. ..."
"... the same PR campaign that started with Bush and Cheney continues-the exact same campaign. Obviously, they have to come back at the apple with variations, but any notion that the "media will get it someday" is willfully ignorant of the obvious fact that there is an agenda, and that agenda just won't stop until it's achieved-or revolution supplants the influence of these dark forces. ..."
"... The US media are indeed working overtime to get this war happening ..."
"... In media universe there is no alternative to endless war and an endless stream of hyped reasons for new killing. ..."
"... The media machine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States of Corporations. ..."
"... Oh, the greatest propaganda arm the US government has right now, bar none, is the American media. It's disgraceful. we no longer have journalists speaking truth to power in my country, we have people practicing stenography, straight from the State Department to your favorite media outlet. ..."
"... But all that research from MIT, from the UN, and others, has been buried by the American media, and every single story on Syria and Assad that is written still refers to "Assad gassing his own people". It's true, it's despicable, and it's just one example of how our media lies and distorts and misrepresents the news every day. ..."
The American Public has gotten exactly what it deserved. They have been dumbed-down in our poor-by-intention school systems. The
moronic nonsense that passes for news in this country gets more sensational with each passing day. Over on Fox, they are making
the claim that ISIS fighters are bringing Ebola over the Mexican Border, which prompted a reply by the Mexican Embassy that won't
be reported on Fox.
We continue to hear and it was even reported in this very fine article by Ms. Benjamin that the American
People now support this new war. Really? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen that support anywhere but on the news and I just don't
believe it any more.
There is also the little problem of infiltration into key media slots by paid CIA Assets (Scarborough and brainless Mika are
two of these double dippers). Others are intermarried. Right-wing Neocon War Criminal Dan Senor is married to "respected" newsperson
Campbell Brown who is now involved in privatizing our school system. Victoria Nuland, the slimey State Department Official who
was overheard appointing the members of the future Ukrainian Government prior to the Maidan Coup is married to another Neo-Con--Larry
Kagan. Even sweet little Andrea Mitchell is actually Mrs. Alan Greenspan.
General Electric, the world's largest military contractor, still controls the message over at the so-called "liberal" MSNBC.
MSNBC's other owner is Comcast, the right wing media conglomerate that controls the radio waves in every major American Market.
Over at CNN, Mossad Asset Wolf Blitzer, who rose from being an obscure little correspondent for an Israeli Newspaper to being
CNN's Chief "Pentagon Correspondent" and then was elevated to supreme anchorman nearly as quickly, ensures that the pro-Israeli
Message is always in the forefront, even as the Israeli's commit one murderous act after another upon helpless Palestinian Women
and Children.
Every single "terrorism expert", General or former Government Official that is brought out to discuss the next great war is
connected to a military contractor that stands to benefit from that war. Not surprisingly, the military option is the only option
discussed and we are assured that, if only we do this or bomb that, then it will all be over and we can bring our kids home to
a big victory parade. I'm 63 and it has never happened in my lifetime--with the exception of the phony parade that Bush Senior
put on after his murderous little "First Gulf War".
Yesterday there was a coordinated action by all of the networks, which was clearly designed to support the idea that the generals
want Obama to act and he just won't. The not-so-subtle message was that the generals were right and that the President's "inaction"
was somehow out of line-since, after all, the generals have recommended more war. It was as if these people don't remember that
the President, sleazy War Criminal that he is, is still the Commander in Chief.
The Generals in the Pentagon always want war. It is how they make rank. All of those young kids that just graduated from our
various academies know that war experience is the only thing that will get them the advancement that they seek in the career that
they have chosen. They are champing at the bit for more war.
Finally, this Sunday every NFL Game will begin with some Patriotic "Honor America" Display, which will include a missing man
flyover, flags and fireworks, plenty of uniforms, wounded Vets and soon-to-be-wounded Vets. A giant American Flag will, once again,
cover the fields and hundreds of stupid young kids will rush down to their "Military Career Center" right after the game. These
are the ones that I pity most.
Let's be frank: powerful interests want war and subsequent puppet regimes in the half dozen nations that the neo-cons have been
eyeing (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan). These interests surely include industries like banking, arms and oil-all of
whom make a killing on any war, and would stand to do well with friendly governments who could finance more arms purchases and
will never nationalize the oil.
So, the same PR campaign that started with Bush and Cheney continues-the exact same campaign. Obviously, they have to come
back at the apple with variations, but any notion that the "media will get it someday" is willfully ignorant of the obvious fact
that there is an agenda, and that agenda just won't stop until it's achieved-or revolution supplants the influence of these dark
forces.
IanB52, 10 October 2014 6:57pm
The US media are indeed working overtime to get this war happening. When I'm down at the gym they always have CNN on (I can
only imagine what FOX is like) which is a pretty much dyed in the wool yellow jingoist station at this point. With all the segments
they dedicate to ISIS, a new war, the "imminent" terrorist threat, they seem to favor talking heads who support a full ground
war and I have never, not once, heard anyone even speak about the mere possibility of peace. Not ever.
In media universe there
is no alternative to endless war and an endless stream of hyped reasons for new killing.
I'd imagine that these media companies have a lot stock in and a cozy relationship with the defense contractors.
Damiano Iocovozzi, 10 October 2014 7:04pm
The media machine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States of Corporations. The media doesn't report on anything but
relies on repeating manufactured crises, creating manufactured consent & discussing manufactured solutions. Follow the oil, the
pipelines & the money. Both R's & D's are left & right cheeks of the same buttock. Thanks to Citizens United & even Hobby Lobby,
a compliant Supreme Court, also owned by United States of Corporations, it's a done deal.
Oh, the greatest propaganda arm the US government has right now, bar none, is the American media. It's disgraceful. we no longer
have journalists speaking truth to power in my country, we have people practicing stenography, straight from the State Department
to your favorite media outlet.
Let me give you one clear example. A year ago Barack Obama came very close to bombing Syria to
kingdom come, the justification used was "Assad gassed his own people", referring to a sarin gas attack near Damascus. Well, it
turns out that Assad did not initiate that attack, discovered by research from many sources including the prestigious MIT, it
was a false flag attack planned by Turkey and carried out by some of Obama's own "moderate rebels".
But all that research from
MIT, from the UN, and others, has been buried by the American media, and every single story on Syria and Assad that is written
still refers to "Assad gassing his own people". It's true, it's despicable, and it's just one example of how our media lies and
distorts and misrepresents the news every day.
that's a fake battle. The US foreign policy is controlled by MIC and Wall Street. Elected
officials, as we see in cases of both Oabma and Trump administrations, "simply does not
matter."
That arrangement (which now is associated with the term the Deep state") is a part of the
rule of military-industrial complex and due to the existence of powerful three letter agencies
created by Truman can't be changed. Essntially Truman secured the victory of military industrial
complex for the next hundred years or more.
Congressional efforts are underway to seize control of foreign-policy decisions from the
executive. Who will win?
There are signs of growing congressional inconsistency, if not incoherence, regarding the
authority of the president in foreign affairs. The legislature seeks to interfere on issues
that are the president's responsibility while still failing to fulfill its own constitutionally
mandated responsibility regarding the war power.
An incident of misplaced assertiveness took place in January when the House of
Representatives passed the NATO Support Act prohibiting the executive branch from using any
funds to facilitate U.S. withdrawal from the Alliance in any way. The legislation appears to
bar a drawdown of U.S. troop levels in Europe and any effort to terminate U.S. membership in
NATO.
Enacting the legislation seemed weirdly premature. President Donald Trump has not even taken
any substantive actions that might diminish U.S. participation in NATO affairs. He has merely
criticized the allies for their lack of burden-sharing in the collective defense effort and
(correctly) suggested that NATO itself might be "obsolete" given how much the European and
global security environments have changed since the Alliance's birth at the dawn of the Cold
War against the Soviet Union.
The constitutionality of such restrictions also is highly suspect. The Constitution makes
the president the steward of foreign affairs. Presidents historically have enjoyed wide
latitude regarding the interpretation, execution, and even termination of U.S. treaties. Chief
executives have enjoyed even greater latitude regarding troop deployments, especially in
noncombat situations, and the nature, extent, and duration of military commitments to implement
treaties or other agreements. Congressional interference in the form of the NATO Support Act
would be truly revolutionary -- and not in a good way. It is a transparent congressional
attempt to usurp the president's rightful constitutional authority and seek to micromanage U.S.
foreign policy.
The NATO issue is not the only case in which congressional efforts are underway to seize
control of foreign-policy decisions from the executive. A faction in both houses is now pushing
a measure that would prevent the White House from failing to honor U.S. obligations under the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty until it expires in February 2021. Unlike in the case
of NATO, the president has taken tangible steps against the INF. After accusing Russia of
violating its obligations under the treaty, Trump announced that the United States intended to
withdraw from the INF . It should be stressed that the issue is not whether the president's
policies on NATO or the INF are wise or misguided; the relevant issue is whether the
Constitution invests the executive or Congress with the authority to make those decisions.
Greater congressional assertiveness on such issues is especially odd given how readily
Congress has abandoned its own explicit constitutional authority to control the war power. Even
as legislators moved to restrict Trump regarding NATO and the INF, there was no effective
campaign to prevent him from implementing his decision to keep at least two hundred troops in
Syria, despite the continuing lack of any congressional authorization for U.S. military
involvement in that combat zone.
... ... ...
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at the National Interest , is the author of twelve books and more than 750
articles on foreign affairs.
Could you say that "checks and balances" of the US in current stage are "unbalanced"
Looks like executive branch has its own policies and legislative branch is trying very hard
to nullify whatever executive branch can or could potentially do (and it will impact future
presidents too).
And more importantly all this "meddling" (forgive me the pun) between the branches
essentially cripples the US politics, foreign and internal.
If one can imaging THAT is the Russian goal then perhaps Mr. Trump could get the Star of Hero
of the Russian Federation pretty soon
Our system of checks and balances has become totally unbalanced, destabilized like some
Arab government we've decided don't like. Political scientists are all telling us that we're
on the way to having a classic autocratic regime, where nothing matters except what El
Supremo says matters.
And Congress is supine. They really don't care much about how the country is being run,
they just care if they get re-elected. And the right half of them thinks they won't get
re-elected if they oppose Trump. So there's no veto-proof majority.
It never used to be this way. But it has been said that "The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson)
And we just don't have enough patriots to get the job done. I look to the young people to
be changing that.
Political scientists are all telling us that we're on the way to having a classic
autocratic regime, where nothing matters except what El Supremo says matters.
I have elusive feeling that American policies have already been praying to "El Supremo" for
some time, it just wasn't so openly obvious until now.
And the "El Supremo" name is "Wall Street". Globalisation have taken over American policies
for some time.
It became obvious after "too big to fail" incidents of 2008.
Another example: FAANG has so much power now that it can literally kill smaller private
companies with a mouse click. It can shape public opinion and no doubt it can soon be able to
elect politicians.
That's something different. Wall Street funds quite a large portion of the campaigns waged
by both parties. So whichever party wins an election, they are anxious to never offend their
sponsors. You might look up the proportions of presidential elections contributions made by
the financial and insurance industries.
(This is also why we can never seem to get a good single-payer health system. It would get
rid of private health insurance.)
I was talking about the once-creeping, now-galloping expansion of presidential powers.
This was first evident during the presidency of George W Bush, when the theory of the
Unitary Executive was put forth, by people like John Yoo and David Addington.
It establishes the theory that the Constitution allows a sitting president to disregard
those laws he doesn't want to enforce and to take executive actions that do not depend on
congressional approval. That is, he is above the law and accountable to no one.
Empire, even a powerful one cannot win prosperity with a war or wars. Eventually you'd
need to provide some economy to the colonies. The less you provide the more they gonna hate
you and resist you. The more you provide the less they gonna need you and eventually
overthrow you.
Winning with wars is utopia, like communism.
You are a little wrong when you call this system "colonial". Today it is neo-colonialism.
When the United States subordinates the country, they do not bear any responsibility for the
fate of this country, since the formally subordinate country remains independent and all its
actions are performed "voluntarily."
Ukraine is a good example. Now this country commits ritual suicide "completely
voluntarily."
"... I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters – "one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors " ..."
I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations
have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters –
"one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors "
Anti-Semitism theater – a carefully staged social movement organized by Government
owned media to divide the peons and make them hate each other. Real hate-group profit lies in
charging for vast quantities of militarism but making just enough to kill women and children
overseas.
Back home the flag waving patriots insist they need a giant military with weapons
for anyone who can pay to protect them and their families. Dual loyalty to the Jewish lobby
and the defense lobby.
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced
foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of
US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
And on the heels of
Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with
the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous.
As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes ,
Greenwald asserted in
an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.
Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned
the motives behind them.
"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true,
this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries
in the Trump White House."
"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies:
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the
Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement
of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."
As Greenwald explained during his interview:
"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate
disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the
world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."
Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence
community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald
noted that Mike Morell,
acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump
during the presidential campaign.
Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria.
In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead
advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.
"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was
exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout
the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."
"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few
days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside
the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."
Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of
undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated
and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel
ban.
He continued:
"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to
urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."
He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members
of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.
As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties,
across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era
leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."
He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.
I have been meaning to write something on faux Libertarians of the corporatist ilk for a
while. However, since I
switched to forecasting mode instead of advocacy , I have tried to leave the political
element out of my posts as much as possible. I'll leave the politics to those who enjoy it; I
don't. But, I think this is an important topic so I am going to give it a go here.
If you do a search
for the word 'liberty' on the Internet, invariably you find the Wikipedia entry for that word.
I think the definition used there is a good one. Here's what Wikipedia says about Liberty :
Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the
condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal
responsibility and free will. The conception of liberty is influenced by ideals concerning
the social contract as well as arguments that are concerned with the state of nature.
Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the
individual from outside compulsion or coercion and this is defined as negative liberty.
What you will notice is there is nothing in this definition regarding corporations. It is
all about individual liberty and the freedoms of individuals . Individuals are born with
innate, natural and inalienable rights to liberty that are
self-evident. This philosophical view of humankind gained currency during the enlightenment and
is now universally accepted. It also underpins the very concept of democracy and is the origin
of the founding of the United States of America.
For example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence begins [highlighting added]:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them withpowers of the earth, the separate and equal
sta
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness . -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.
As always, I have to note that the writer of the Declaration was a slaveholder in a country
in which government killed the indigenous population. So, there is certainly a gap between the
high-mindedness of this wonderful document and actual events on the ground. Don't let that
detract from the aspirational quality of the words.This is exactly what individual liberty is
all about.
On the other hand, a corporation is a societal construct codified
into legal existence to further the mutual interests of individuals. A corporation is "an
artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of the law,"
according to
Chief Justice Marshall in the Dartmouth College Case of 1819. Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward , won by Daniel Webster when
the state of New Hampshire attempted to turn the college into The University of New Hampshire,
was an early American test of eminent domain-type property seizure.
A corporation has no inalienable or natural rights. Nevertheless, it is the fact that
corporations represent a group of individuals that allows the 'corporatist' to claim that these
fictional legal entities should enjoy the same natural and legal liberties and rights with
which individuals are born.
Let me be bold here: The 'Corporatist' is a kleptocrat masquerading as a believer in
liberty. He uses terminology based in liberty to construct an ideology solely as a means of
furthering the gains of a specific strata of society allied with the corporatist and at
the expense of other strata, by coercion if necessary .
Remember my post on
kleptocracy from 2008? If not, here are the four methods Jared Diamond says ruling elites
use to maintain power:
Disarm the populace, and arm the elite.
Make the masses happy by redistributing much of the tribute received, in popular
ways.
Use the monopoly of force to promote happiness, by maintaining public order and curbing
violence. This is potentially a big and underappreciated advantage of centralized societies
over noncentralized ones.
The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or
religion justifying kleptocracy.
I broadened the argument on this in my year in review in 2009. Please read
The year in review at Credit Writedowns – Kleptocracy to get a fuller perspective.
Here's the statement from that post I want to concentrate on:
The last (and perhaps most important) issue [of the four ways elites maintain power], in
my view, has to do with the unabiding faith in free markets that many now have. It is with
religious zeal that these so-called Libertarians defend the primacy of markets over all else
when in reality common sense would tell you that those with the greatest influence and money
will always be at an advantage without some check on that influence and power.
This is the corporatism, the faux Libertarianism, to which I refer. The logic goes like
this:
Individuals have inalienable rights to freedom. This is a fundamental right that all
individuals have and efforts by government to undermine these rights must be resisted at all
costs.
Corporations are groups of individuals which have banded together for mutual benefit. In
so doing, they can express their individual natural rights more effectively than they could
as individuals.
As such, corporations must retain the same rights as individuals legally in order to
allow those individuals the corporation represents to express there natural rights.
Therefore, the same resistance to denying the rights of individuals must also be transferred
to the corporations which represent them .
This logic will take you much further in furthering the aims of corporations, the point
being that corporations, businesses, should enjoy the same rights that individuals have.
That is not to say that businesses should not have rights. They should; and we should grant
them as much liberty as is reasonable and warranted. But let's be clear, corporations are not
individuals; they are collections of individuals. Often, individuals hide behind this
collective using the corporate veil to shield themselves from sanction for behaviour that
abuses individual liberties. In a very real sense, the rights and liberties of businesses and
individuals often come into conflict. A real libertarian would always favour the individual in
that conflict . A corporatist would favour the corporation. That's the difference.
Let me give you an example. Say I was walking down the street in Louisville, Kentucky and
saw a cute little shop that sold Kettle Korn. For those of you who don't know kettle korn, it
is salted and sweetened popcorn that was brought to the U.S. by German immigrant farmers in
Pennsylvania, Maryland and into the Midwest over two hundred years ago. In Germany, popcorn is
sweet not salty like it is in the U.S. So, I see this store and I am thinking, "They have
Kettle Korn in Kentucky? Wow, who knew. I love this stuff. Let me go get some." Here's the
problem: the owner of the store has a business policy that no black people are allowed inside.
Mind you, this isn't a government policy because government discrimination based on race or
ethnicity is illegal in the United States. But, this business owner doesn't want Blacks in his
store. So when I enter, he tells me to leave because I am violating his store's liberty to
choose its own policies.
I would say the individual liberty trumps the business liberty in this case, especially
since the owner is violating his own government's business policy as well as societal norms. A
corporatist would say that the business owner wins since it is his business. Again, that's the
difference.
There are lots of other examples of corporatism at work in the U.S. legal system regarding
property rights in particular. My November 2009 post "
New York to use eminent domain to build a basketball stadium " showed the New York State
Court of Appeals ruling that the Atlantic Yards basketball project can go
forward as planned, dislocating the residents in the Brooklyn, NY area where the stadium is to
be built. The decision means that government can evict you from your own home, seize your
property, and give you what it believes is a fair price without your consent to build a
sports arena,
ostensibly for the public good but certainly for state and private profit.
This and other cases like it are occurring because of the decision in Kelo v. City of New
London, Conn . If a state or local government deems a private project – funded by
private monies and profiting private enterprises – to be in the public interest, it can
seize your property to allow this project to occur. In the New London case, residents were
evicted to make way for a luxury hotel and up-scale condos, from which private developers would
profit handsomely. Kelo was an outrageous example of cronyism completely at odds with
the ethos of the Dartmouth College Case of 1819. Because of Kelo , government can now
abuse its power to enrich specific private interests. That's corporatism at work.
Corporatism has nothing to do with liberty. It is all about power and coercion. It's about
favouring the big guy over the little guy, the more well-connected over the less
well-connected, the insider over the outsider. And in society that means favouring large,
incumbent businesses over smaller businesses, new entrants or individuals. How does
deregulation and free market ideology fit into this ?
"Obviously, if some always have more power and wealth than others, there is never a
situation in which the economic playing field is level. Moreover, it is axiomatic that those
with the means and access will always have greater influence over government than those
without. So, in a very real sense, the socioeconomic elite of any advanced, stratified society
will always have disproportionate control of the economic and political system.
"Now, I happen to be a Libertarian-minded individual, so I have nothing against the free
markets or the concept of limited government and deregulation. Freer markets and more limited
government are my preferred ideal. However, I am a realist. I understand that markets are never
truly free and
government fulfils a necessary function .
"So, when you hear someone talking about getting government out of the way and allowing the
free markets to work, you should be thinking about the influence and control this would
naturally engender.
"Think crony capitalism
"In fact, I would argue that the deregulation and free market capitalism that these
individuals refer to is really crony capitalism in disguise. I will explain.
"When I think of deregulation, I think of two related but distinct concepts. The one is the
actual de-regulation, which is the permission of economic actors to compete in markets
previously unavailable to them by order of legislation or de facto government intervention and
coercion. The other is regulatory oversight, which is the maintenance of specific rules of
engagement under threat of penalty on economic actors by government. De-regulation and
regulatory oversight are related concepts but they are not the same."
I think the books contains some useful information about the history of Propaganda Wars and the Deep state. But also a
lot of junk: Fidel Castro listed along with CIA connected neocons as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski: Key elements in this secret
war have been the Department of State, the National Security Council, the Central
Intelligence Agency, as well as some of the conspirators' secret agents like Allen Dulles,
Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Fidel Castro.
He also denigrates Marx, which sound very simplistic. While Marx was wrong about many things and first of about
"the dictatorship of the proletariat". As well as the idea that proletariat is a new progressive class that will became the
next dominant class on the next stage of the development of the mankind, displacing capitalists. But Marx provided an
excellent framework for the analysis of capitalism. So to throw out all the Marxism is IMHO unwise.
Notable quotes:
"... The conspirators are a small group of Wall Street bankers, oil magnates and CEOs of transnational corporations, most of them senior members of the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
"... Key elements in this secret war have been the Department of State, the National Security Council, the Central Intelligence Agency, as well as some of the conspirators' secret agents like Allen Dulles, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Fidel Castro. ..."
America is at war. But this not a conventional war waged with tanks, battleships and planes
in conventional battlefields -- at least not yet. It is a secret, insidious type of war whose
battleground is the people's minds. Its main weapons are propaganda and mass brainwashing by
disinformation, cunning, deception and lies in a large scale not used against the people of any
nation since Nazi Germany. Though important, however, those elements are just part of a series
of carefully planned and executed long and short-term psychological warfare operations. In
synthesis, it is a psychological war -- a PSYWAR.
If an unfriendly foreign power had carried
out against the American people the actions carried out by Wall Street bankers, Oil magnates
and CEOs of transnational corporations entrenched at the Council on Foreign Relations and its
parasite organizations, we might well have considered it an act of war.
Unfortunately, most
Americans ignore that they are under attack. The reason is because, like Ninja assassins, the
main weapon used by the conspirators who have managed to infiltrate and take control of the
U.S. Government and most of American life has been their invisibility. For almost a century,
these small group of conspirators have been waging a quiet, non-declared war of attrition
against the American people, and it seems that they are now ready for the final, decisive
battle.
Unfortunately, as the last two presidential elections showed, the brainwashed American
people reacted by changing the puppets, leaving the puppet masters untouched and in control. In
this book Servando Gonzalez studies in detail the origins of the conspiracy, who the
conspirators are, the main elements of this PSYWAR and, what's more important, how we can fight
back and win
This review is from: Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War
Against the American People (Paperback)
About the book
America is at war. But this is not a conventional war waged with tanks, battleships and
planes in conventional battlefields --at least, not yet. It is a secret, insidious type of
war whose battleground is the people's minds. Its main weapons are mind viruses disseminating
mass brain-washing through propaganda disinformation, cunning, deception and lies in a large
scale not used against any people since Nazi Germany. Though important, these elements are
just part of a series of carefully planned and executed long- and short-term psychological
warfare operations. In synthesis, it is a psychological war --a PSYWAR.
If an unfriendly foreign power had carried out against the American people the actions
carried out by Wall Street bankers, Oil magnates and CEOs of transnational corporations
entrenched at the Council on Foreign Relations and its parasite organizations, we might well
have considered it an act of war. Unfortunately, most Americans ignore that they are under
attack. The reason is because, like Ninja assassins, the main weapon used by the conspirators
who have managed to infiltrate and take control of the U.S. Government and most of American
life has been their invisibility.
For almost a century, this small group of conspirators have been waging a quiet,
non-declared war of attrition against the American people, and it seems that they are now
ready for the final, decisive battle. Unfortunately, as the last two presidential elections
showed, the brainwashed American people reacted by changing the puppets, leaving the puppet
masters in control.
This book studies in detail the origins of the conspiracy, who the conspirators are, the
main elements of this PSYWAR and, what's more important, how we can fight back and win.
About the Author
Cuban-born Servando Gonzalez got his training as a historian at the University of Havana.
He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage,
and semiotics.
Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, The
Secret Fidel Castro, The Nuclear Deception and La madre de todas las conspiraciones, all
available at Amazon.com.
He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and
Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San
Leandro, California.
What the critics are saying
Servando Gonzalez' exposé of the Alien Queen, also known as the CFR, could easily
alter the future of Western civilization and America for the good. These are times when a
single man may make great contributions to the cause of human dignity and freedom. --Kevin E. Abrams, co-author with Scott Lively of The Pink Swastika.
Thoreau wrote, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root." Servando Gonzalez didn't waste any time hacking at the branches, and
reveals the very crooked roots of evil. This is a most impressive book. A must read. --G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island.
Servando Gonzalez has studied in detail the men and organizations that rule the world.
This book reveals the true story of how Fidel Castro came to power, and discusses the
powerful group that has kept him in power for almost fifty years. It is one of the most
important books of this decade. Read it and learn about the invisible forces that direct the
course of world affairs. --Stanley Monteith, author of Brotherhood of Darkness.
Read this book. Read it carefully. It not only tells you what's happening today but, with
very well chosen historical perspective, it lets you look down the road of the recent past
for proof of what it says. That is the best way to learn to look at the future in order to
fathom what is coming your way. And what is coming our way in the U.S., Europe --the whole
world-- is riddled with grave dangers, pitfalls and perils. --Adrian Salbuchi, author of El cerebro del mundo: la cara oculta de la
globalización.
Edward Bernays wrote, "We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." However, Servando Gonzalez, an astute
researcher and author, masterly divulges the machinations behind many historical and
contemporary events and reveals who is really managing the presidential puppet strings. As
Servando maintains, the new American Revolution, using covert warfare, is a conflict without
guns. Rather, the ammunition is lies and psychological warfare and every American citizen is
a target. It is a fabulous book, a must-read! --Deanna Spingola, author of When the Power Elite Rules.
Book's Content
Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American
People
Contents
Preface
Conspiracies and Conspiracy "Theories" Espionage and Skepticism Historians and Intelligence Analysts The Art and Science of Historical Tradecraft
Introduction
A Fractured America The Covert American Revolution Who Are the New World Order Conspirators? The Secret War Against the American People Walking Back the Cat
Chapter 1. Is There an Invisible Government of the United States?
The CIA as Scapegoat The Council on What? The Science of Historical Forensics U.S. Presidents on Blinders CFR's Inside Critics The CFR Octopus The CIA's True Bosses
Chapter 2. Spying: The Rockefellers' True Passion
The Inquiry: First U.S. Civilian Intelligence Agency House-Wilson: A Typical Case of Agent Recruitment Wilson: The First Successful U.S. Puppet President The Family that Spies Together . . . Nelson and David Inherit Their Grandpa's Passion for Spying The Family Tradition Continues
Chapter 3. The Council on Foreign Relations: The Conspirators' Secret Intelligence
Agency
The Conspirators Create an Anti-American Monster The CFR: Second U.S. Civilian Intelligence Agency A Very Secretive Organization The CFR: an Association of Criminal Traitors The Invisible Government of the United States The CFR Conspirators Take Early Control of the Press The Conspirators Extend Their Control Over the Press, the Arts and the Academia The Conspirators Infiltrate the Two Parties The Conspirators Infiltrate the State Department
Chapter 4. The OSS: of the Bankers, by the Bankers, for the Bankers
American Intelligence Before and After WWI Was the OSS an Intelligence Agency? OSS: The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight OSS: The Conspirators' Fifth Column Inside the U.S. Armed Forces The Assassination of General Patton
Chapter 5. The National Security Act, the CIA and the Creation of Artificial
Insecurity
The National Security Act of 1947 and the Origins of the National Security Council U.S. Presidents as CFR's Puppets The National Security Council: a Key Tool of the CFR Conspirators Why the CIA? The CIA: The Conspirators' Secret Military Arm The NSC Illegally Authorizes the CIA to Conduct Covert Operations Covert Operations: The CIA's True and Only Purpose
Chapter 6. The CIA's "Failures"
The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight? The Gang That Shouldn't Shoot Straight CIA's Failed Assassination Attempts on Fidel Castro The CIA's True Role Team B VS Team A The Two CIAs CFR Conspirators Create CIA B American Patriots Working for CIA A HUMINT VS TECHINT Enemy Moles Inside the CIA Angleton's Deep Game
Chapter 7. The Cold War PSYOP
The CFR Conspirators Use the CIA to Recruit Fidel Castro The Bogotazo False Flag Operation and the Cold War PSYOP The Agent Provocateurs Planting False Clues Was Castro a Communist? The Bogotazo and the Assassination of Gaitán An Intelligence Analysis of the Bogotazo Gaitan's Assassin: A Manchurian Candidate? An Intelligence Analysis of Gaitán's Assassination New Pieces of the Puzzle The Bogotazo: Still a Mystery
Chapter 8. The CFR Mole Infiltrates the Soviets
The Destruction of Russia and the Creation of the Soviet Union Khrushchev's Peaceful Threat A Spy is Born ... or Made? Fidel Castro to the Rescue The Bay of Pigs PSYOP
Chapter 9. Agent Castro Warms Up the Cold War
The Soviets Swallow the Dangling Bait The CFR's Agent Provocateur Strikes Again Khrushchev Tries to Get Rid of Castro, But Fails Castro's Good Job on Behalf of His CFR Masters The Latin American Guerrillas and Other PSYOPs Fidel Castro and the 9/11 False Flag Operation The Castro-Chávez PSYOP
Chapter 10. PSYOPs Against the American People I
A War in the People's Minds PSYOPs Do Exist The War-for-Eugenics PSYOP The Anti-Christian PSYOP The Gay Movement PSYOP The Gay Marriage PSYOP
Chapter 11. PSYOPs Against the American People II
The Environmental PSYOP Anthropogenic Global Warming? The Two Party PSYOP The War on Terror PSYOP The Obama PSYOP
Chapter 12. Castro's Cuba: A Testing Ground for the New World Order?
The Cuban Economy Before Castro Cuba as a Testing Ground Castro's Cuba: a CFR Conspirator's Paradise
Chapter 13. The End of the CIA and the Beginning of the New World Order
The CFR Conspirators Take Control Over the U.S. Military The CFR's Fifth Column Inside the U.S. Armed Forces Faithful to Two Flags? The CFR Conspirators Destroy the CIA They Don't Need Anymore The "Support Our Army" Myth
Epilogue: What Can We Do to Win This War?
Is the U.S. Becoming a Totalitarian Dictatorship? Ballots or Bullets? Why They Hate Us? The Conspirators' Final Push for the New World Order PSYWAR and Mind Viruses
Appendixes
Appendix I. A Chronology of Treason
Appendix II. The Evaluation of Information: Intelligence, the 9/11/2001 Events, and the Cuban
Missile Crisis of 1962
Appendix III. Hegelian-type PSYOPS. False Flag Operations: Bogotazo and 9/11/2001
From the Preface
This is a book about a conspiracy. It is not, however, about the imaginary "vast
right-wing conspiracy" mentioned by Hillary Clinton. Neither it is about the alleged
"conspiracy of ideas" carried out by well-intentioned, honest people engaged in "an
ideological battle," mentioned by Congressman Ron Paul.
It is about a real vast right- left-wing conspiracy carried out by a group of criminal
psychopaths without any ideology at all except maximum power and control. To carry out their
plants, the conspirators usually resort to deception, coercion, extortion, usury,
racketeering, Ponzi schemes, theft, torture, assassination and large-scale mass murder.
The ultimate goal of these conspirators is the total destruction of the American republic
as we knew it and the creation of a global communo-fascist feudal totalitarian society under
their full control --a society they euphemistically call the New World Order.
The conspirators are a small group of Wall Street bankers, oil magnates and CEOs of
transnational corporations, most of them senior members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Though their push for total control of the U.S. government began in 1913 during the Wilson
administration, since the end of WWII it has become a fully developed psychological war of
immense proportions secretly waged against the American people. Key elements in this secret
war have been the Department of State, the National Security Council, the Central
Intelligence Agency, as well as some of the conspirators' secret agents like Allen Dulles,
Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Fidel Castro.
This conspiracy resembles a gigantic puzzle of which many pieces are missing or have been
intentionally placed in the wrong place in order to mislead. This explains why most analysts
who have studied the phenomenon using the analytical method have failed to find the true
source of the problem.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars This book is a roller coaster... , September 13,
2010
This book is a roller coaster. It questions most of your accepted ideas about
the Council on Foreign Relations, the OSS, the CIA, Castro, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban
missile crisis, 9/11 and many other events we take for granted. After reading this book I
agree with the author's assertion that most of what has been written about the CIA - pro and
con - is simply hogwash.
Gonzalez's theory about the two CIAs after the Team A -- Team B deception is very
convincing. This may explain why this is at the same time the most anti-CIA and the most
pro-CIA book ever written. (The book is dedicated to Arthur B. Darling, the first CIA
official historian.)
Moreover, this is the only book I have read that provides a logical explanation to the
CIA's seemingly illogical abandonment of HUMINT for its current widespread use of TECHINT,
and why good CIA officers have been abandoning the Agency.
Also, after reading many books about James Jesus Angleton, this books dissects his
behavior and shows what he really was: a traitor and a common criminal serving not the
American people but his true masters, the Wall Street bankers and oil magnates who created
the CIA.
A must read for CIA former and current officers, particularly the ones in the intelligence
area.
This book reads like a spy novel. In almost every single page I found shocking assertions
and theories -- supported by more than a thousand scholarly footnotes.
After enumerating the long list of CIA's failures, many books about the CIA rhetorically
ask the question: "Why the CIA has been so stupid?" After reading Gonzalez' book now I ask
myself, how I have been so stupid to believe the assertions that the CIA guys --or, much
better, the people who control the CIA-- are stupid?
In his book Gonzalez shows how, since its very conception, the CIA has never served us,
the American people, but the Wall Street bankers, oil magnates and CEOs of transnational
corporations who created it. The time is ripe to get rid of the CIA and the rest of alphabet
soup of intelligence organizations who use taxpayers money to protect the interest of
international bankers and transnational corporations.
Ah, and before we close the CIA building and throw away the key, I would like to see
destroyed the bust of William Donovan decorating its vestibule. While the traitor who ordered
that assassination of General Patton got a statue, the heroic, patriotic general's memory has
been covered with mud. What a shame!
I had a chance to read
and advance copy of this book and it was very interesting. I am a fan of conspiracy theory
books and historical books so this was right up my alley. What I realized though, after I
read more and more of the book is that this is not your typical book on this subject. It
backs ideas up with facts and has lots of good footnotes which I will use for future
reference. This type of subject matter may not be for everyone, but considering how things
are going in this country, it might be worth the read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Had a chance to
purchase a copy of the book this past Saturday, started reading it then and finished it this
morning. Mr. Gonzalez has done such a remarkable job of analyzing historical events in detail
and providing so much key evidence that his claims must be taken seriously. I'm not going to
go into every detail about the book, but if you believe that everything in this country is
not as it seems and that we are being lied to by our government now and have been lied to in
the past, read this book.
Gonzalez in his engaging prose brings you quickly up-to-speed in the globalist plan and
the players. In spite of the abundance of typos and editing errors along with some stilted
English phrases, the book will be difficult to put down; and when it ends, you'll want to
know more. Hopefully,the second printing will be better-edited.
Warning, you will not be able to go back to where you were before, after reading this
book! , June 12, 2012
I am an honorably discharged Veteran with 20 years of military service and because I've
questioned the actions and motivations of the CFR, Homeland security, the bombing of the
Oklahoma Federal Building and the events of 9/11, I have been labeled by my government as a
potential terrorist. I am ashamed, hurt, confused and feel alarmed.
Why and how did it get to this point?
If you want to understand, put on your seat-belt and prepare yourself when you read
Servando Gonzalez's Psychological Warfare and the New World Order.
The wealth of historical, empirical proof within this work will rock your world. Just when
you think that you have reached the climax of evidence, the next wave of proof makes the hair
on the back of your neck stand up!
This book will affect you in a way that you will never be able to walk down American
streets again without recognizing that you could be seen as nothing more than cannon fodder
for a ruthless and cunning organization that has been working for a goal for over a hundred
years.
I am not religious but what has been going on in America and the rest of the world, is
truly evil. It's a force that is working to insure billions of people will suffer and who is
left will serve the masters of the New World Order.
This is not science fiction, not some crazy story of some sick delusional nut, this is
reality of elements within our government.
Servando Gonzalez will guide you through this strange and factual journey about what is
really going on in America and elements with in our government. If you don't care about your
love ones, if you don't care about your honor, if you don't care about knowing about what you
can do to protect yourself against this force, don't read this master piece of factual
work.
***Fair warning*** The knowledge in this capstone of work will affect you personally!
Literally. Servando Gonzalez's book on psychological warfare looks at the people and
organizations (and their motivations) of the conspiracy behind all other conspiracies.
For decades I've read of the main conspiracy-related events of my life time, the who's and
why's behind - JFK's and RFK's assassinations, the Contra/Arkansas cocaine/arms trade and
Whitewater money laundering scandal, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 attacks - and have
been fascinated, shocked, outraged, bewildered and disgusted. This book goes right to the
heart of the agenda behind these various events, and shows them to be mere layers in a much
larger onion. This book provides a clear overview but is also full of fascinating details,
especially on how Castro was a CIA agent and how his rule of Cuba has not been what it seems,
as well as providing a run down of some of the current PSYOPs being run on the American
public.
Gonzalez's own review here gives an outline of the details better than I ever could so I
will keep this short. I came across this book after reading a lengthy review by Gonzalez for
a different book on Amazon, greatly impressed by his intellect and perspective. At first I
was leery of purchasing his book because many of these reviews appear written by friends of
his (single review reviewers always make me skeptical). However this book delivers, and as
another reviewer commented here, it will change your understanding, views and perhaps life.
It has quickly risen into the top 10 list of influential books I've read. I'd even venture
say it is essential.
My main complaint is that while well informed, and intelligent Gonzalez's writing is often
dense and repetitive (as well as having a fair number of typos), and so apparently rushed to
press without thorough editing. Given the timely need of this book this is excusable, but
hopefully will be remedied in a second edition. More importantly I was sometimes left
wondering how Gonzalez knows all these (specific) people are CFR members/agents? And this
uncertainty of mine, and implied dependence on him, left me in doubt about the whole thesis
(are we both just paranoid delusional? lol!).... But perhaps such doubt (in the face of my
own mix of information and disinformation) is a healthy thing.
Many times when talking with friends about conspiracy ideas and theories they inevitably
ask two fundamental questions; 1) who is behind it all, and 2) why?
This book answers both clearly;
1) The Council of Foreign Relations (via the National Security Council, the CIA and
increasingly the US military command) and various sister organizations (The Trilateral
Commission and The Bilderberg Group). Many individuals are identified, most of these are
familiar public figures (as most high level government appointees and elected officials are
drawn from this elite group).
2) The New World Order - global domination for sustainable control and order by the
super-rich elite (the .0001%, not the mere, ordinary, scape-goated/smoke-screened "1%"). The
effect could well be a return to a new feudal age, with almost all of us in a "safe" but
unfree and impoverished serfdom (kind of like with the Cuba "experiment"). The kicker being
that to do this, "us" will probably be less than a quarter (and perhaps much less) of those
now alive.
And it also answers the question of how.
"But the conspirators who planned to bring a revolutionary change of government in the
United States to implement the communo-fascist regime they call the New World Order were a
bunch of physical cowards, who didn't have the courage to risk their lives in a revolution by
gun play. Consequently, despite the fact that the political system they wanted to implement
was a mixture of communism and fascism, they neither adopted the revolutionary tactics of
open insurrection favored by the Communists, nor the coup d'etat techniques of the Fascists,
but the evolutionary, infiltration techniques advocated by the British Fabians." (pg. 40)
The tools to achieve this Brave New World vision include any and all available. For some
it is direct warfare (the Middle East), for others, famine and eugenics (Africa), and for
American's it is mainly mind control (mass hypnosis and indoctrination) and psychological
warfare (destabilizing events leading to doubt, confusion, fear, depression and
helplessness). Of course this plan is not a given (even though already far along in it's
realization). There are other forces for change, sanity and awakening in the world today.
This is a well-documented expose of the puppet masters that pull the strings of the United
States Government.
As a retired police officer and intelligence analyst, I read this book with validation of
the ideas presented in the fore front of my mind. I used two bookmarks while reading. One
bookmark kept my current place and the other marked the corresponding footnotes. The
footnotes are detailed and accurate and led to even-more paths of discovering the truth.
This book is proof that the United States Government has been usurped by the Council of
Foreign Relations, transnational corporations and Wall Street bankers.
Every chapter is a light bulb going off in your mind. The author has brilliantly gathered
pieces of the puzzle and assembled them into a coherent picture.
This book is essential for understanding what has happened to our country and what is
still happening. It is a MUST read!
Can't find the link but Bill Maher said an Indo-Pakistani war would be "entertaining" or
"amusing" or something like that. That guy has become untethered from his brain.
God, that Trish Regan is a moron on steroids. But, it was very heartening to see Russia
stepping up with aid. Certainly, the physical aid is important to Venezuela but, more
important, is the knowledge that they are not facing the US alone – cautiously
optimistic that Venezuela can survive the assault.
Soooo many bullshit moments, my head is reeling. "The ones who are the aggressors here are
the RUSSIANS, the United States supports a peaceful transition of power". Yes, to the leader
it picked for the country, in a process about as far from democracy as an egg is from an
eggplant. "Russia might not have the same good sweet deals, there would be a more competitive
landscape, and they don't like that". Trish, baby – your National Security Advisor is
on record as publicly stating it would make a big difference to the US economy if the USA
could invest in and produce Venezuela's oil. It already has complete control of the refining
end – if it were also investing in it and producing it what would be left for the
Venezuelans?
It is important to Americans that they always are doing the right thing, the just thing,
the altruistic thing, and that nothing so smutty as American profit and financial gain come
into it. It is for this reason they are fed such self-serving pablum daily by their news
media.
But why should someone as wealthy and well known as Robert Kraft visit a massage parlor in a
strip mall? He could have top whores from around the world flown in to his penthouse . For
god's sake, he could have gone to that private Caribbean Island where the insiders go for
illicit sex with whomever/whatever they could imagine. Something is weirder than average
here.
Log books show Bill Clinton just loved Island hospitality as evidenced by his numerous
visits. Odd, how utterly quiet the MSM is about this – y'ld think that industrial scale
rape of young girls would be newsworthy in the MSM. No, just the Covington Kid get them
going. Eyes Wide Shut at work here.
I think it's the thrill of the chase that appeals, plus knowing that you did something
illegal (either secretly or in full view) and got away with it. Having whores flown to your
place wouldn't have the same appeal.
Well, I suppose being a Peeping Tom could his next adventure. Nevertheless, it still makes
little sense from a psychological aspect. Some say he was somehow set up as a lot of NFL
owners are tired of his team winning the Superbowl every other year and wanted to take him
down a notch or two.
I suspect that most super rich, if not perverts from a young age, end up being perverted
– the power of money and a highly developed market offering perversion is just too much
to resist for most humans. That is a major reason why capitalism or free markets or whatever
you want to call a system that encourages accumulation of vast amounts of wealth is (drum
roll) perverted.
Again, the only defense needed by a cop in killing a suspect was "I thought my life was in
danger" regardless if that were actually the case. In the particular instance, I do think the
cops may have thought such but they were apparently trigger happy and reacted to a "flash of
light" or glint off some something metallic. They thought it was a muzzle blast. Really? They
offered confusing statements as well – the suspect advanced on them in a shooting
stance but refused to show his hands. What kind of shooting stance would that be?
I don't think it was cold blooded murder in this case – just manslaughter. They
ought to be charged accordingly and kicked off the force. But no, everything is OK, nothing
to see. Besides, it would have a chilling effect on police everywhere if they were fearful of
being charged every time they killed someone. I mean, like, who would want to be a cop?
I note that in this instance, though, the deceased was committing a crime; a series of them,
in fact. Nothing he needed to be killed for, certainly, but a case removed from all the other
black men who have been shot with their cell phone in their hand, or nothing at all, while
the cops who decided to 'question' them ( sometimes for nothing more than walking on the
sidewalk in a mostly-white neighbourhood) had no apparent reason to be bothering them. Police
intervention was certainly called for here, although it is hard to believe it could not have
been carried out without any real violence at all. The list of people who actually decided to
go for their gun when ordered to put their hands up by police who already have their weapons
out must be a short one.
Police in America seem uniformly convinced that black men they detain will try to kill
them. I wonder why? Have a lot of police officers been shot to death by black men? I bet the
list of black men killed by police is a lot longer.
To partially address the question of how many police are killed by felonious acts (shot, run
over, etc.) versus how many they have killed by shooting (not counting fatalities from
crashes during police chases), its roughly 65 to 1,000+. or better than a 15 to 1 kill ratio.
31% of the civilian victims were black.
In Britain and Japan, there were a few civilians killed by police last year. China had 4
(US rate was 1,500 times higher per capita). Could not find info on Russia. Philippines was
way higher than the US rate apparently due to the drug war and terrorists may be included in
that data as well.
Pretty interesting video... no we know that the Swamp consumed Flatfooted Donald rather quickly
Notable quotes:
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture
a Trump scandal
Louis John 2 hours ago
@hexencoff
McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya
Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag
Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling
him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this
country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.
ryvr madduck 1 hour ago
+belaghoulashi
Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the
ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed
him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's
exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain
then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should
have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo
don't they...they do say shit floats.
Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago
@Michael Cambo
- Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who
don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living -
explain to me how he is draining the swamp
tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks
He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies
2017 the best is yet to come
Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan
Very FakeStream Media
aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six
more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain
has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look
up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News
Network.
Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago
@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes
a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump
is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is
there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country
- if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right
to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree
Buffett Supports Trump on Cabinet Picks 'Overwhelmingly'
by Amanda L Gordon and Noah Buhayar
January 19, 2017, 8:19 PM EST January 20, 2017, 10:12 AM EST
Warren Buffett said he "overwhelmingly" supports President-elect Donald Trump's choices for cabinet
positions as the incoming commander-in-chief's selections face confirmation hearings in the U.S.
Senate.
"I feel that way no matter who is president," the billionaire Berkshire Hathaway Inc. chairman
and chief executive officer said Thursday in New York at the premiere of a documentary about his
life. "The CEO -- which I am -- should have the ability to pick people that help you run a place."
"If they fail, then it's your fault and you got to get somebody new," Buffett said. "Maybe you
change cabinet members or something."
Buffett, 86, backed Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, stumping for her in Omaha, Nebraska,
and headlining fundraisers. The billionaire frequently clashed with Trump and scolded him for not
releasing income-tax returns, as major party presidential candidates have done for roughly four decades.
Trump's cabinet picks include Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. banker; former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state; and retired
Marine Corps General James Mattis as Defense secretary.
Since the election, Buffett has struck a more conciliatory tone toward Trump and called for unity.
In an interview with CNN in November, he said that people could disagree with the president-elect,
but ultimately he "deserves everybody's respect."
Trump's Popularity
That message hasn't resonated. Trump's popularity is the worst for an incoming president in at
least four decades, with just 40 percent of Americans saying they have a favorable impression of
him, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday. Buffett said on Thursday that the
low approval ratings won't matter much.
"It's what you go out with that counts -- 20, 50 years later what people feel you've achieved,"
Buffett said.
The president-elect has continued his pugnacious style during the transition, picking fights on
Twitter with news outlets, automakers, defense contractors, intelligence agencies, Hollywood actress
Meryl Streep and civil rights hero-turned-U.S. Congressman John Lewis.
* It solved the problem of Democrats beginning to get a spine and going after the Felonious
Five (or at least the three with major conflict of interest).
* It bumped Bush's approval rating from 40% to 80%.
* It greatly lowered opposition to Bush's anti-civil-liberties policies, such as creating
"1st Amendment Zones".
* It made passage of the Patriot Act possible.
* People were able to smear opposition to the Bush team policies as treasonous.
* It rendered torture, aggressive war, and barbaric imprisonment without due process of
law respectable.
Bush Administration sabotaged investigation:
Remember Coleen Rowley who claimed that an FBI superior back in DC rewrote her request for
a warrant, to make it less likely that it would be approved? There was also the FBI agent in
Arizona who wanted to investigate certain pilot students, but was prohibited.
Remember the DeLenda Plan? Once
we knew the USS Cole was Al Qaeda, it should have been executed. As in the spring of 2001.
Alas, it was deferred to after 9/11. Most incompetent crew ever and the Twin Towers fell down
taking 3000 people with because of their utter incompetence.
"... "That might have left people with the false impression that their votes mean absolutely nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy, and in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image." ..."
"That might have left people with the false impression that their votes mean absolutely
nothing, and that the entire American electoral system is just a simulation of democracy, and
in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire
administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until
they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image."
Now that's writing worth reading. If the Nobel committee did not serve the Global Empire,
it would give the Literature Prize to Hopkins.
The late 19th and 20th century Russians had the horror of dealing with Nihilists running
amuck in their country. Now the Nihilists rule the world as multi-billionaire Globalists.
Barr is CIA's shyster lawyer, Mueller is CIA's cleaner. Both FBI and DoJ are completely
controlled by CIA "focal points" (Dulles' term) or dotted-line reports (Bush-era
Newspeak.)
What's more, Hill and Bill work for CIA too: Hill got her start purloining documents for
CIA's "Watergate" purge of Nixon; Cord Meyer recruited Bill at Oxford.
CIA brainwashing makes Republicans blame Democrats for what CIA does to you, and makes
Democrats blame Republicans for what CIA does to them. CIA runs your country while party
loyalists tear each other's throats out. Divide et impera.
Nobody will be doing a fine job for the country because CIA doesn't give a rat's ass about
the country. They've got a business to run: drug-dealing, gun-running, child trafficking and
pedophile blackmail, money-laundering, foreign asset-stripping.
"I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at
Narco Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC
murdered him and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat
to Maduro. You don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our
country, the most powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're
foolish enough to think voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't
stop until they're either in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because
you ask them to, which is all voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
Mafia is the correct description. And you are right, they will never willingly give up
their power. It has to be taken from them. And anyone who expects voting to do that job
better find themselves a Elliot Ness to put in the WH.
Barr is CIA's shyster lawyer, Mueller is CIA's cleaner. Both FBI and DoJ are completely
controlled by CIA "focal points" (Dulles' term) or dotted-line reports (Bush-era
Newspeak.)
What's more, Hill and Bill work for CIA too: Hill got her start purloining documents for
CIA's "Watergate" purge of Nixon; Cord Meyer recruited Bill at Oxford.
CIA brainwashing makes Republicans blame Democrats for what CIA does to you, and makes
Democrats blame Republicans for what CIA does to them. CIA runs your country while party
loyalists tear each other's throats out. Divide et impera.
Nobody will be doing a fine job for the country because CIA doesn't give a rat's ass about
the country. They've got a business to run: drug-dealing, gun-running, child trafficking and
pedophile blackmail, money-laundering, foreign asset-stripping.
Don't the people pulling the strings behind the media understand what they have done?
They have convinced a large part of the nation that everything that they were taught from
childhood is a fraud.
Civilizations are only held together by the "glue" of shared beliefs. The
deep-state-media-complex has just applied a solvent to the very glue that holds the entire
culture together.
And Hopkins says a disillusioned people might realize
in reality they are living in a neo-feudalist, de facto global capitalist empire
administrated by omnicidal money-worshipping human parasites that won't be satisfied until
they've remade the whole of creation in their nihilistic image.
There has been a longstanding bipartisan attack against the nation, and I use that term as
defined as "a stable, historically developed community of people with a territory, economic
life, distinctive culture, and language in common."
But I don't think the "deep-state-media-complex" is concerned by this. Again, feature not
bug.
We begin our investigation with a historical account of the rise of neoliberal hegemony.
Hegemony is a concept developed by Italian Marx- ist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was keen to
account for the definitive role that culture played in legitimizing and sustaining capitalism
and its exploitation of the working classes. In our own context of extreme economic inequality,
Gramsci's question is still pressing: How and why do ordinary working folks come to accept a
system where wealth is produced by their collective labors and energies but appropriated
individually by only a few at the top?
The theory of hegemony suggests that the answer to this question is not simply a matter of
direct exploitation and control by the capitalist class. Rather, hegemony posits that power is
maintained through ongoing, ever-shifting cultural processes of winning the consent of the
governed, that is, ordinary people like you and me.
In other words, if we want to really understand why and how phenomena like inequality and
exploitation exist, we have to attend to the particular, contingent, and often contradictory
ways in which culture gets mobilized to forward the interests and power of the ruling classes.
According to Gramsci, there was not one ruling class, but rather a historical blос.
"A moving equilibrium" of class interests and values.
Hegemony names a cultural struggle for moral, social, economic, and political leadership; in
this struggle, a field -- or assemblage -- of practices, discourses, values, and beliefs come
to be dominant. While this field is powerful and firmly entrenched, it is also open to
contestation.
In other words, hegemonic power is always on the move; it has to keep winning our consent
to survive, and sometimes it fails to do so. Through the lens of hegemony, we can think about
the rise of neoliberalism as an ongoing political project -- and class struggle -- to shift
society's political equilibrium and create a new' dominant field.
That's a natural reaction to the revelation of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy FBI
director, that top Justice Department officials, alarmed by Donald Trump's firing of former
Bureau director James Comey, explored a plan to invoke the 25th Amendment and kick the duly
elected president out of office.
According to New York Times reporters Adam Goldman and Matthew Haag, McCabe made the
statement in an NBC 60 Minutes interview to be aired on Sunday. He also reportedly said
that McCabe wanted the so-called Russia collusion investigation to go after Trump for
obstructing justice in firing Comey and for any instances they could turn up of his working in
behalf of Russia.
The idea of invoking the 25th Amendment was discussed, it seems, at two meetings on May
16, 2017. According to McCabe, top law enforcement officials pondered how they might recruit
Vice President Pence and a majority of cabinet members to declare in writing, to the Senate's
president pro tempore and the House speaker, that the president was "unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office." That would be enough, under the 25th Amendment, to install
the vice president as acting president, pushing aside Trump.
But to understand what kind of constitutional crisis this would unleash and the precedent it
would set, it's necessary to ponder the rest of this section of the 25th Amendment. The text
prescribes that, if the president, after being removed, transmits to the same congressional
figures that he is indeed capable of discharging his duties, he shall once again be president
after four days. But if the vice president and the cabinet majority reiterate their declaration
within those four days that the guy can't govern, Congress is charged with deciding the issue.
It then takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to keep the president removed, which would have
to be done within 21 days, during which time the elected president would be sidelined and the
vice president would govern. If Congress can't muster the two-thirds majority within the
prescribed time period, the president "shall resume the powers and duties of his office."
It's almost impossible to contemplate the political conflagration that would ensue under
this plan. Citizens would watch those in Washington struggle with the monumental question of
the fate of their elected leader under an initiative that had never before been invoked, or
even considered, in such circumstances. Debates would flare up over whether this comported with
the original intent of the amendment; whether it was crafted to deal with physical or mental
"incapacitation," as opposed to controversial actions or unsubstantiated allegations or even
erratic decision making; whether such an action, if established as precedent, would destabilize
the American republic for all time; and whether unelected bureaucrats should arrogate to
themselves the power to set in motion the downfall of a president, circumventing the
impeachment language of the Constitution.
For the past two years, the country has been struggling to understand the two competing
narratives of the criminal investigation of the president.
One narrative -- let's call it Narrative A -- has it that honorable and dedicated federal
law enforcement officials developed concerns over a tainted election in which nefarious Russian
agents had sought to tilt the balloting towards the candidate who wanted to improve
U.S.-Russian relations and who seemed generally unseemly. Thus did the notion emerge, quite
understandably, that Trump had "colluded" with Russian officials to cadge a victory that
otherwise would have gone to his opponent. This narrative is supported and protected by
Democratic figures and organizations, by adherents of the "Russia as Threat" preoccupation, and
by anti-Trumpers everywhere, particularly news outlets such as CNN, The Washington Post
, and The New York Times .
The other view -- Narrative B -- posits that certain bureaucratic mandarins of the
national security state and the outgoing Obama administration resolved early on to thwart
Trump's candidacy. After his election, they determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel.
The McCabe revelation won't affect the battle of the two narratives. As ominous and
outrageous as this "deep state" behavior may seem to those who embrace Narrative B, it will be
seen by Narrative A adherents as evidence that those law enforcement officials were out there
heroically on the front lines protecting the republic from Donald J. Trump.
And those Narrative A folks won't have any difficulty tossing aside the fact that McCabe was
fired as deputy FBI director for violating agency policy in leaking unauthorized information to
the news media. He then allegedly violated the law in lying about it to federal investigators
on four occasions, including three times while under oath.
Indeed, Narrative A people have no difficulty at all brushing aside serious questions posed
by Narrative B people. McCabe is a likely liar and perjurer? Doesn't matter. Peter Strzok, head
of the FBI's counterespionage section, demonstrated his anti-Trump animus in tweets and emails
to Justice official Lisa Page? Irrelevant. Christopher Steele's dossier of dirt on Trump,
including an allegation that the Russians were seeking to blackmail and bribe him, was compiled
by a man who had demonstrated to a Justice Department official that he was "desperate that
Donald Trump not get elected and passionate about him not being president"? Not important. The
dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party? Immaterial.
Nothing in the dossier was ever substantiated? So what?
Now we have a report from a participant of those meetings that top officials of the
country's premier law enforcement entity sat around and pondered how to bring down a sitting
president they didn't like. The Times even says that McCabe "confirmed" an earlier
report that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein suggested wearing a wire in meetings with
Trump to incriminate him and make him more vulnerable to the plot.
There is no suggestion in McCabe's interview pronouncements or in the words of Scott Pelley,
who conducted the interview and spoke to CBS This Morning about it, that these federal
officials ever took action to further the aim of unseating the president. There doesn't seem to
be any evidence that they approached cabinet members or the vice president about it. "They were
speculating, 'This person would be with us, this person would not be,' and they were counting
noses in that effort," said Pelley. He added, apparently in response to Rosenstein's
insistence that his comments about wearing a wire were meant as a joke, "This was not perceived
to be a joke."
What are we to make of this? Around the time of the meetings to discuss the 25th Amendment
plot, senior FBI officials also discussed initiating a national security investigation of the
president as a stooge of the Russians or perhaps even a Russian agent. These talks were
revealed by The New YorkTimes and CNN in January, based on closed-door
congressional testimony by former FBI general counsel James Baker. You don't have to read very
carefully to see that the reporters on these stories brought to them a Narrative A sensibility.
The Times headline: "F.B.I. Opened Inquiry into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on
Behalf of Russia." CNN's: "Transcripts detail how FBI debated whether Trump was 'following
directions' of Russia." And of course, whoever leaked those hearing transcripts almost surely
did so to bolster the Narrative A version of events.
The independent journalist Gareth Porter, writing at Consortium News, offers a penetrating
exposition of the inconsistencies, fallacies, and fatuities of the Narrative A matrix, as
reflected in how the Times and CNN handled the stories that resulted from what were
clearly self-interested leaks.
Porter notes that a particularly sinister expression in May 2017 by former CIA director
John O. Brennan, a leading Trump antagonist, has precipitated echoes in the news media ever
since, particularly in the Times . Asked in a committee hearing if he had intelligence
indicating that anyone in the Trump campaign was "colluding with Moscow," Brennan dodged the
question. He said his experience had taught him that "the Russians try to suborn individuals,
and they try to get them to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly."
Of course you can't collude with anybody unwittingly. But Brennan's fancy expression has the
effect of expanding what can be thrown at political adversaries, to include not just conscious
and nefarious collaboration but also policy advocacy that could be viewed as wrongheaded or
injurious to U.S. interests. As Porter puts it, "The real purpose is to confer on national
security officials and their media allies the power to cast suspicion on individuals on the
basis of undesirable policy views of Russia rather than on any evidence of actual collaboration
with the Russian government."
That seems to be what's going on here. There's no doubt that McCabe and Rosenstein and
Strzok and Brennan and Page and many others despised Trump and his resolve to thaw relations
with Russia. They viewed him as a president "who needed to be reined in," as a CNN report
described the sentiment among top FBI officials after the Comey firing.
So they expanded the definition of collusion to include "unwitting" collaboration in order
to justify their machinations. It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would
take such a cavalier attitude toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body
politic.
Now we learn that they actually sat around and plotted how to distort the Constitution, just
as they distorted the rules of official behavior designed to hold them in check, in order to
destroy a presidential administration placed in power by the American people. It's getting more
and more difficult to dismiss Narrative B.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the
author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. MORE FROM THIS
AUTHOR
You're right, it didn't change a thing in the full-throated support to depose an elected
President they disagree with. The bureaucratic cabal has long had a more informal absolute
veto over who can even run for President. This guy challenged that hegemony of insider power
brokers, and caused the revelation that we have morphed into a Potemkin-style, managed
democracy, in which we don't choose who gets to run, just which of their choices we are allowed
to approve.
Such is the decadent trajectory, of republics that transition into empires, where
democratic accountabilty to the governed, domestic and foreign, decays in favor of empire
administrators and their elite beneficiaries and their sinecures at the expense of the
majority.
People rail against Trump as some sort of would-be Caesar, but he is elected, while those
permanent unaccountable "national security" czars acting in secrecy they are willing to
transfer all power to, are not.
No form of popular government can survive when secret police recording everything and spying
on the population become the real power.
"It's difficult to believe that people in such positions would take such a cavalier attitude
toward the kind of damage they could wreak on the body politic."
What we don't want to recognize is that people in such positions are, in fact, just that
dumb. It is unfortunately true. While not a Trump supporter, I would be out on the streets with
them if these jacka$$es had tried to pull this off. They should ALL be immediately terminated
and any benefits revoked.
Last night (Feb 14, 2019) Tucker Carlson interviewed retired Harvard law professor Alan
Dershowitz (1:04-3:36):
Carlson: "Professor, thanks very much for coming on. So now the suspicions of many are
confirmed by one of the players in it. The Department of Justice discussed trying to remove the
President using the 25 Amendment. What's your reaction to that?
Dershowitz: "Well, if that's true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d'état.
Relating to what your former guest said, let's take the worst case scenario: Let's assume the
President of the United States was in bed with the Russians, committed treason, committed
obstruction of justice -- the 25 Amendment simply is irrelevant to that. That's why you have an
impeachment provision. The 25th amendment is about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke. It's about a
president being shot and not being able to perform his office. It's not about the most
fundamental disagreements. It's not about impeachable offenses. And any Justice Department
official who even mentioned the 25th Amendment in the context of President Trump has committed
a grievous offense against the Constitution. The framers of the 25th amendment had in mind
something very specific. And trying to use the 25th amendment to circumvent the impeachment
provisions, or to circumvent an election is a despicable act of unconstitutional
power-grabbing. And you were right when you said it reminded me of what happens in third world
countries. Look, these people may have been well-intentioned. They may believe that they were
serving the interests of the United States. But you have to obey the law and the law is the
Constitution and the 25th Amendment is as clear as could be: incapacity, unable to perform
office. That's what you need. That's why you need 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate
agreeing. And it has to be on the basis of a medical or psychological incapacity. Not on the
basis of even the most extreme crimes -- which there is no evidence were committed -- but even
if they were, that would not be basis for invoking the 25th Amendment. And I challenge any
left-wing person to get on television and to defend the use of the 25th Amendment. I challenge
any of my colleagues who are in the "Get Trump At Any Cost" camp to come on television and
justify the use of the 25 Amendment other than for physical or psychiatric incapacity.
Carlson: I bet they're doing that right now. This is an attack on our system, I would say,
not just the President. Alan Dershowitz, thank you very much.
Dershowitz: It is an attack on our system. It's an attack on the constitution. Thank
you.
How many millions of dollars did Bill and Hill receive from Russians? How much of America's
uranium deposits did Hillary sell to Russians during her time in the Obama administration? The
New York Times informs us:
" . . . the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity
in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for
national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from
a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off
was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions
from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton
Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling
$2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an
agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in
Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank
with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
"At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease
concerns about ceding control of the company's assets to the Russians. Those promises have been
repeatedly broken, records show."
I wonder how much howling and how many allegations of "collusion" with Russia we'd be
hearing if the name Clinton were removed from the NY Times article and the name Trump were
inserted?
The article states: " top officials of the country's premier law enforcement entity sat around
and pondered how to bring down a sitting president they didn't like."
-- -- -- --
Which makes one wonder if "The rule of law" is becoming the rule of outlaws? When the
non-elected in the justice profession appear to have their own agenda.
Trump is an idiot, but his enemies in the lib-Dem-media Establishment are far worse: corrupt,
deceitful, arrogant, and lawless. Exhibit A is Andrew McCabe.
That's why I'll vote for the Idiot-in-Chief (again) in 2020. Because the alternative makes
me vomit.
"The pages of this publication drift further and further into utter insanity and
despicable defense of Trump. Stand up for the values of the Constitution, or something, but
not for this man who is no more than a self-enriching demagogue with no understanding of the
reactionary politics he uses to delude the rubes and attract asinine threadbare pieces like
this one."
Actually no. Consider me the inverse of Peter. I didn't vote for Trump due to the character
weaknesses Peter describes. However, what I see is a seriously flawed man who has served the
useful purpose of revealing an echo chamber of flawed and self-serving biases shared by the
media and political establishment of this country. I see CNN, the NY Times, the Washington
Post, and even some key leaders of our security services in a completely different light than I
did two years ago. I am thankful for the clarity. I consider Merry's article to be a
contribution in that direction.
"Peter" sez: "Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they
knew to be a criminal taking over the office of the presidency."
Weird but no one has shown any actual criminal behavior by said President. Two years later
still no charges. But Peter and these "career law enforcement officials" KNEW he was a
criminal. Then Peter appeals to the Constitution, apparently oblivious to the fact that the
Constitution doesn't make any provisions for plotting to remove the lawfully elected President
because you don't like just because you "know" he is a "criminal", in spite of any actual
evidence.
"After his election, they (the deep state) determined to undermine his political standing, and
particularly his proposed policy toward Russia, through a relentless and expansive
investigation characterized by initial misrepresentations, selective media leaks, brutal law
enforcement tactics, and a barrage of innuendo. This is the narrative of most Trump supporters,
conservative commentators, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page, notably
columnist Kimberley Strassel."
The trouble with that is it completely ignores the ton of evidence pointing to really
nefarious stuff.
Lots of times, when there's smoke, there's fire. And when the smoke is overwhelming there
probably is a fire. A big one.
Trump has been going after the Russians since his inauguration. Therefore, those trying to
remove him from office are likely the actual Russian agents. Of course they would need smoke
and mirrors to hide that fact and deflect attention from themselves. It just so happens that
Russian spies are trained by the FSB to accuse others of being a spy, for just this purpose.
I'm looking at you, John O. (Oleg?) Brennan
No matter who the President is, there is some group of people in Washington is ALWAYS trying to
bring him down. Who those people are, and how large and powerful the group is, depends on a
variety of factors. But a competent president manages to enact his agenda while staying one
step ahead of his intriguers. Obama and GWB accomplished both, more or less because they were
intelligent men of good character (though Obama was much smarter and better man than W)
While Bill Clinton's character was too low to avoid impeachment he was a smart and able
administrator. Trump has both low character and low intellect so it is not surprising A. that
many people want to bring him down and B. that they have been pretty effective.
Politics may be a blood sport in Washington but that's not the same as a "deep state". And
Trump can't compete and win with anyone in Washington who doesn't grovel before him like the
supine Senate Republicans. And that is no one's fault but his.
You wanting Trump to be a Russian agent does not make him one. It never
will. Get over it. , ,
February 16, 2019 at 12:08 am
"If it turns out that Trump IS a Russian asset, will you apologize, Robert Merry? Because he
certainly acts like one. And, as REAL Republicans used to say, if it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it's a duck."
@One Guy Yeah, because sending deadly aid to Ukraine is so pro-Russian. What an idiot you
are!
"Can't imagine why career law enforcement officials were concerned with a guy they knew to be a
criminal taking over the office of the presidency. Shame on them!"
They also "knew" Martin Luther King Jr. was a Soviet agent.
The issue with the 25th amendment, is that the President's character flaws or mental deficiency
were known and very visible before the election. Is it constitutionally proper for Congress to
suspend a President for a preexisting condition that was known to and unhidden from voters? If
Congress did that, it means Congress has a veto over who the public is allowed to vote in as
President.
Forget the Covington students, Andrew McCabe and his lady co-workers have some pretty punchable
faces. (Ok, I'm enough of a sexist to not punch a lady. I'd use eye-rolling and mocking
gestures instead.)
The problem is not the existence of the deep state. It's inevitable that there will be
unelected officials who will continue to shape policy regardless of who is elected President.
The problem is that the deep state is blatantly working to undermine its elected
leadership. If you can't in good conscience work with your President, the honorable thing
to do is resign as some undoubtedly have. It's not an excuse for insubordination.
Being pro-Zionism is New York way of being militarist
Notable quotes:
"... Trump just appointed John Bolton ! Trump has betrayed us ! How did they turned him ? Blah blah blah .. Forchrissake ! ..."
"... It boggles the mind that even at this stage, so many peoples are still bamboozled by this duopoly dog and pony show , aka the mukkan election ! ..."
The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
inverted totalitarianism
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
In neoliberal MSM there is positive feedback loop for "Trump is a Russian agent" stories. So the meme feeds on itself.
Notable quotes:
"... And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence agencies. ..."
"... the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience. ..."
"... Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors, and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's not that much different from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years ..."
"... Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water ..."
"... Now they're skipping the middle man and killing them directly by psychologically brutalizing them so aggressively that it ruins their health, all to ensure that Democrats support war and adore the U.S. intelligence community . ..."
"... The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting U.S. government institutions. ..."
"... The ability of those in power to manipulate the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an inverted totalitarianism which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered by the interests of the common man. ..."
The always excellent Moon of Alabama blog has just
published a sarcasm-laden piece documenting the many, many aggressive maneuvers that this administration has made against the
interests of Russia, from pushing for more NATO funding to undermining Russia's natural gas interests to bombing Syria to sanctioning
Russian oligarchs to dangerous military posturing.
<picture deleted>
And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him as a Putin puppet who is working
to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand
for even more dangerous escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S. intelligence
agencies.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, there would be a lot less "Putin's puppet" talk and a lot more "Hey,
maybe we should avoid senseless escalations which could end all life on earth" talk among news media consumers. But there isn't,
because the mass media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives. Even if those narratives
are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of their audience.
Like His Predecessors
Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected government just like his predecessors,
and indeed as far as actual policies and administration behavior goes he's
not that much different
from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic anti-immigrant speech Trump
hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, people would be no more worried about this administration than they
were about the previous ones, because when it comes to his administration's actual behavior, he's just as reliable an upholder of
the establishment-friendly status quo as his predecessors.
Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating establishment war agendas in repeating
government agency propaganda as objective fact and promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't
even give Americans health insurance or safe drinking water.
They do this for a reason, of course. The Yellow Vests protests in France have continued unabated for their
ninth consecutive week , a decentralized populist uprising resulting from ordinary French citizens losing trust in their institutions
and the official narratives which uphold them.
The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power on the planet are watching France
closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting
U.S. government institutions. Right now they've got Republicans cheering on the White House and Democrats cheering on the U.S.
intelligence community, but that could all change should something happen which causes them to lose control over the thoughts that
Americans think about their rulers.
Propaganda is the single most-overlooked and under-appreciated aspect of human society. The ability of those in power to manipulate
the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has allowed for an
inverted totalitarianism
which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered
by the interests of the common man.
The only thing that will lead to real change is the people losing trust in corrupt institutions and
rising like lions against them. That gets increasingly likely as those
institutions lose control of the narrative, and with trust in the mass media at an all-time low, populist uprisings restoring power
to the people in France, and media corporations
acting increasingly weird and insecure , that looks more and more likely by the day.
"... So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live under. ..."
"... Notwithstanding what the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous, self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was supposed to mean, exactly). ..."
"... Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever. What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces, media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in Venezuela. ..."
"... And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. ..."
Maybe Donald Trump isn't as stupid as I thought. I'd hate to have to admit that publicly,
but it does kind of seem like he has put one over on the liberal corporate media this time.
Scanning the recent Trump-related news, I couldn't help but notice a significant decline in the
number of references to Weimar, Germany, Adolf Hitler, and "
the brink of fascism " that America has supposedly been teetering on since Hillary Clinton
lost the election.
I googled around pretty well, I think, but I couldn't find a single
editorial warning that Trump is about to summarily cancel the U.S. Constitution, dissolve
Congress, and
proclaim himself Führer . Nor did I see any mention of Auschwitz , or any other Nazi
stuff which is weird, considering that the Hitler hysteria
has been a standard feature of the official narrative we've been subjected to for the last two
years.
So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He
did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the
bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist
empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live
under.
I'm referring, of course, to Venezuela, which is one of a handful of uncooperative countries
that are not playing ball with global capitalism and which haven't been "regime changed" yet.
Trump green-lit the attempted coup purportedly being staged by the Venezuelan "opposition," but
which is obviously a U.S. operation, or, rather, a global capitalist operation. As soon as he
did, the corporate media immediately suspended calling him a fascist, and comparing him to
Adolf Hitler, and so on, and started spewing out blatant propaganda supporting his effort to
overthrow the elected government of a sovereign country.
Overthrowing the governments of sovereign countries, destroying their economies, stealing
their gold, and otherwise bringing them into the fold of the global capitalist "international
community" is not exactly what most folks thought Trump meant by "Make America Great Again."
Many Americans have never been to Venezuela, or Syria, or anywhere else the global capitalist
empire has been ruthlessly restructuring since shortly after the end of the Cold War. They have
not been lying awake at night worrying about Venezuelan democracy, or Syrian democracy, or
Ukrainian democracy.
This is not because Americans are a heartless people, or an ignorant or a selfish people. It
is because, well, it is because they are Americans (or, rather, because they believe they are
Americans), and thus are more interested in the problems of Americans than in the problems of
people in faraway lands that have nothing whatsoever to do with America. Notwithstanding what
the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous,
self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were
brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he
sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was
supposed to mean, exactly).
Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a
fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less
buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever.
What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a
decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national
governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces,
media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in
Venezuela.
The entire global capitalist empire is working in concert to force the elected president of
the country out of office. The US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Denmark,
Poland, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Argentina have officially recognized
Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela, in spite of the fact that no one elected
him. Only the empire's official evil enemies (i.e., Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and other
uncooperative countries) are objecting to this "democratic" coup. The global financial system
(i.e., banks) has frozen (i.e., stolen) Venezuela's assets, and is attempting to transfer them
to Guaido so he can buy the Venezuelan military. The corporate media are hammering out the
official narrative like a Goebbelsian piano in an effort to convince the general public that
all this has something to do with democracy. You would have to be a total moron or hopelessly
brainwashed not to recognize what is happening.
What is happening has nothing to do with America the "America" that Americans believe they
live in and that many of them want to "make great again." What is happening is exactly what has
been happening around the world since the end of the Cold War, albeit most dramatically in the
Middle East. The de facto global capitalist empire is restructuring the planet with virtual
impunity. It is methodically eliminating any and all impediments to the hegemony of global
capitalism, and the privatization and commodification of everything.
Venezuela is one of these impediments. Overthrowing its government has nothing to do with
America, or the lives of actual Americans. "America" is not to going conquer Venezuela and
plant an American flag on its soil. "America" is not going to steal its oil, ship it "home,"
and parcel it out to "Americans" in their pickups in the parking lot of Walmart.
What what about those American oil corporations? They want that Venezuelan oil, don't they?
Well, sure they do, but here's the thing there are no "American" oil corporations.
Corporations, especially multi-billion dollar transnational corporations (e.g., Chevron,
ExxonMobil, et al.) have no nationalities, nor any real allegiances, other than to their major
shareholders. Chevron, for example, whose major shareholders are asset management and mutual
fund companies like Black Rock, The Vanguard Group, SSgA Funds Management, Geode Capital
Management, Wellington Management, and other transnational, multi-trillion dollar outfits. Do
you really believe that being nominally headquartered in Boston or New York makes these
companies "American," or that Deutsche Bank is a "German" bank, or that BP is a "British"
company?
And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. Ask yourself,
honestly, what have the "American" regime change ops throughout the Greater Middle East done
for any actual Americans, other than get a lot of them killed? Oh, and how about those bailouts
for all those transnational "American" investment banks? Or the billions "America" provides to
Israel? Someone please explain how enriching the shareholders of transnational corporations
like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin by selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabian
Islamists is benefiting "the American people." How much of that Saudi money are you seeing?
And, wait, I've got another one for you. Call up your friendly 401K manager, ask how your
Pfizer shares are doing, then compare that to what you're paying some "American" insurance
corporation to not really cover you.
For the last two-hundred years or so, we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as the
citizens of a collection of sovereign nation states, as "Americans," "Germans," "Greeks," and
so on. There are no more sovereign nation states. Global capitalism has done away with them.
Which is why we are experiencing a "neo-nationalist" backlash. Trump, Brexit, the so-called
"new populism" these are the death throes of national sovereignty, like the thrashing of a
suffocating fish before you whack it and drop it in the cooler. The battle is over, but the
fish doesn't know that. It didn't even realize there was a battle until it suddenly got jerked
up out of the water.
In any event, here we are, at the advent of the global capitalist empire. We are not going
back to the 19th Century, nor even to the early 20th Century. Neither Donald Trump nor anyone
else is going to "Make America Great Again." Global capitalism will continue to remake the
world into one gigantic marketplace where we work ourselves to death at bullshit
jobs in order to buy things we don't need, accumulating debts we can never pay back, the
interest on which will further enrich the global capitalist ruling classes, who, as you may
have noticed, are preparing for the future by purchasing luxury
underground bunkers and post-apocalyptic compounds in New Zealand. That, and militarizing
the police, who they will need to maintain "public order" you know, like they are doing in
France at the moment, by
beating, blinding, and hideously maiming those Gilets Jaunes (i.e., Yellow Vest) protesters
that the corporate media are doing their best to demonize and/or render invisible.
Or, who knows, Americans (and other Western consumers) might take a page from those Yellow
Vests, set aside their political differences (or at least ignore their hatred of each other
long enough to actually try to achieve something), and focus their anger at the politicians and
corporations that actually run the empire, as opposed to, you know, illegal immigrants and
imaginary legions of Nazis and Russians. In the immortal words of General Buck Turgidson, "I'm
not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed," but, heck, it might be worth a try, especially
since, the way things are going, we are probably going end up out there anyway.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"... The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel ..."
"... Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy ..."
"... Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability to minimize the effects of the economic war ..."
"... So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of the West rushed to follow the decision. ..."
"... Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance. ..."
Even before the 2016 US presidential election, this blog supported that Donald Trump is
apure sample of neoliberal barbarism . Many almost laughed at this perception because Trump was being already promoted,
more or less, as the 'terminator' of the neoliberal establishment. And many people, especially in the US, tired from the economic
disasters, the growing inequality and the endless wars, were anxious to believe that this was indeed his special mission.
Right after the elections, we supported that the
US establishment
gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in power, against the only candidate that the same
establishment identified as a real threat: Bernie Sanders.
In 2017 , Trump bombed Syria for the first time, resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war disaster. Despite the fact that
the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the
targeted airport was operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep state that he is
prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of the confrontation with Russia.
Indeed, a year later, Trump built a pro-war team that includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish neocons. And then, he ordered a
second airstrike against Syria, together with his neocolonial friends.
In the middle of all this 'orgy' of pro-establishment moves, Trump offered a controversial withdrawal of US forces from Syria
and Afghanistan to save whatever was possible from his 'anti-interventionist' profile. And it was indeed a highly controversial action
with very little value, considering all these US military bases that are still fully operational in the broader Middle East and beyond.
Not to mention the various ways through which the US intervenes in the area (training proxies, equip them with heavy weapons, supporting
the Saudis and contribute to war crimes in Yemen, etc.)
And then , after this very short break, Trump returned to 'business as usual' to satisfy the neoliberal establishment with a 'glorious'
record. He achieved a 35-day government shutdown, which is the
"longest shutdown in US history"
.
Trump conducted the longest experiment on neoliberals' ultimate goal: abolishing the annoying presence of the state. And this
was just a taste of what Trump is willing to do in order to satisfy all neoliberals' wet dreams.
And now, we have the Venezuela issue. Since Hugo Chavez nationalized PDVSA, the central oil and natural gas company, the US empire
launched a fierce economic war against the country. Yet, while all previous US administrations were trying to replace legitimate
governments with their puppets as much silently as possible through slow-motion coup operations, Trump has no problem to do it in
plain sight.
And perhaps the best proof for that is a statement by one of the most warmongering figures of the neocon/neoliberal cabal, hired
by Trump . As John Bolton cynically and openly
admitted recently,
" It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and
produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. "
Therefore, one should be very naive of course to believe that the Western imperialist gang seriously cares about the Venezuelan
people and especially the poor. Here are three basic reasons behind the open US intervention in Venezuela:
The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel, as well as the
great untapped
natural resources , particularly gold (mostly for the Canadian companies).
Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy, which is mainly funded by
the oil production. The imperialists know that they must interrupt the path of Venezuela to real Socialism by force if necessary.
Neoliberalism must prevail by all means for the benefit of the big banks and corporations.
Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability
to minimize the effects of the economic war. The country may find an alternative to escape the Western sanctions in order to fund
its social programs for the benefit of the people. And, of course, the West will never accept the exploitation of the Venezuelan
resources by the Sino-Russian bloc.
So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of
the West rushed to follow the decision.
This is something we have never seen before. The 'liberal democracies' of the West - only by name - immediately, uncritically
and without hesitation jumped on the same boat with Trump towards this outrageously undemocratic action. They recognized Washington's
puppet as the legitimate president of a third country. A man that was never elected by the Venezuelan people and has very low popularity
in the country. Even worse, the EU parliament
approved this action
, killing any last remnants of democracy in the Union.
Yet, it seems that the US is finding increasingly difficult to force many countries to align with its agenda. Even some European
countries took some distance from the attempted constitutional coup, with Italy even
trying to
veto EU's decision to recognize Guaido.
Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes
the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism
with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and
ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance.
This unprecedented action by the Western neoliberal powers to recognize Guaido is a serious sign that neoliberalism returns to
its roots and slips towards fascism. It appears now that this is the only way to maintain some level of power.
LOL Deep State is a term used by the simple minded. There is no 'deep state' there is
however a shadow government and it is made up of various groups all jockeying for
their own interest.
We have the 'Establishment..i.e. the two parties who want to maintain
their political power. We have the Corporate Elites and Globalist ' who want to control the
world's commerce and economies. We have Wall Street who doesnt want any restrictions on their
financial crimes. We have Domestic Business Interest who want laws and policies favorable to
them. We have Foreign Interest who want to use the US for their country.
Sometimes they join forces when their interest coincide, sometimes they don't.
Outside of this shadow government we have Ideological Activist of various kinds that can
be useful or not to the Establishment, the Globalist, Wall Street, Domestic Business Interest
and Foreign Interest.
All of the above are why we cant and don't have coherent policies on anything foreign or
domestic.
People like you who want to ascribe everything to some giant conspiracy in the CIA help to
dumb people down , its easier for the lazy to have one or two big scary entities to blame.
You cant even explain what the CIA conspiracy is can you? Tell us how the CIA maintains their
conspiracy against the US and what their goal is. How does the CIA maintain their secret
agenda when the CIA is subject to new CIA directors with every change of presidents and
parties?
Financial industry has inherent trend toward parasitism and gangsterism and as such should be
as tightly regulated as gambling. Probably even more. But under neoliberalism where financial
oligarchy a the ruling class this is a pipe dream. I do not see any significant countervailing
force other the far right nationalism. Far right nationalism has power to brake bankers spine,
but usually they allied with them (fascism)
Those that have been following events for several years know they are under attack by an
enemy that has no face and means to do them great harm. Nothing less than their sovereignty and
freedom is at stake.
Absolute control over people and resources is the ultimate goal.
...the bankers want to show up after the population has lost everything in a collapse,
to be their savior and gain control of everyone by offering resources in exchange for
compliance.
In the end these bankers are just people . They yield NO power other than a
cheap magi c trick called money. They are simply losers pulling levers behind the curtain .
They are terrified of real people. They are terrified of being exposed. They are worthless
conjurers of useless paper. Their power is a cheap spell. They always have known that once
people are aware of the trick, they are done. They are afraid of elevated souls. They are
afraid of the awakened. They are terrified of the big red pill that is coming for the masses. Game over.
Technological superiority is a weapon and the USA know how to use it.
Notable quotes:
"... Made in China 2025 is the Chinese government's 10-year plan to update the country's 10 high-tech manufacturing industries, which include information technology, robotics, aerospace, rail transport, and new-energy vehicles, among others. ..."
"... Without U.S. semis, China will not be able to process the technology necessary to push forward the Made in China 2025 program. "American chips in many ways form the backbone of China's tech economy," Shah said. ..."
"... The Trump Administration's tariffs on Chinese goods were intended to severely disrupt the Chinese tech-advancement initiative. But Shah says that making U.S. chips more expensive for China could have consequences for the U.S. as well. ..."
"... "Over 50% of Chinese semiconductor consumption is supplied by U.S. firms In 2017, China consumed $138bn in integrated circuits (ICs), of which it only produced $18.5bn domestically, implying China imported $120bn of semis in 2017, up from $98bn in 2016 and $73bn in 2012." ..."
"... If the two leaders are unable to come to some sort of trade resolution at the meeting, U.S. tariffs on over $200 billion worth of Chinese goods will increase from 10% to 25% on January 1, 2019. ..."
"... While US has the upper hand on semis, a trade embargo on semis will (1) slows down China's move towards achieving Made in China 2025, (2) at the same time give China the impetus to rush ahead will all resources available to achieve the originally omitted goal of being self-sufficient in tech skills and technology, and (3) seriously hurt companies like Intel, AMD, Micron, and Qualcom as a huge percentage of their businesses are with China, and with that portion of their business gone, all these companies will end up in a loss and without the needed financial resources to invest into new technology in the near future. ..."
As trade tensions run hot between the U.S. and China, President Trump might have one key advantage in the trade war, according
to Nomura.
Analyst Romit Shah explained that China's dependence on U.S.-made advanced microchips could give Trump the upper hand.
"We believe that as China-U.S. tensions escalate, U.S. semiconductors give Washington a strong hand because the core components
of Made in China 2025 (AI, smart factories, 5G, bigdata and full self-driving electric vehicles) can't happen without advanced microchips
from the U.S.," Shah said in a note to clients.
BEIJING, CHINA – NOVEMBER 9, 2017: US President Donald Trump (L) and China's President Xi Jinping shake hands at a press conference
following their meeting at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Artyom Ivanov/TASS (Photo by Artyom Ivanov\TASS via Getty Images)
Made in China 2025 is the Chinese government's 10-year plan to update the country's 10 high-tech manufacturing industries, which
include information technology, robotics, aerospace, rail transport, and new-energy vehicles, among others.
One of Made in China 2025's main goals is to become semiconductor self sufficient. China hopes that at least 40% of the semiconductors
used in China will be made locally by 2020, and at least 70% by 2025. "Made in China 2025 made abundantly clear China's commitment
to semiconductor self-sufficiency. Made in China 2025 will upgrade multiple facets of the Chinese economy," Shah said.
According to Nomura's estimates, China is currently about 3 to 5 years behind the U.S. in dynamic random-access memory (DRAM)
chip production. However, Shah explained that if the trade war persists, the consequences could set Chinese chip production behind
by 5 to 15 years.
Without U.S. semis, China will not be able to process the technology necessary to push forward the Made in China 2025 program.
"American chips in many ways form the backbone of China's tech economy," Shah said.
Consequences for U.S.
The Trump Administration's tariffs on Chinese goods were intended to severely disrupt the Chinese tech-advancement initiative.
But Shah says that making U.S. chips more expensive for China could have consequences for the U.S. as well.
One concern centers around intellectual property theft. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been working hard to punish China
for allegedly attempting to commit espionage. For example, the DOJ believes China was attempting to spy on the U.S. through Huawei
and asked U.S. allies to drop
the Chinese tech equipment maker.
However, while many U.S. chipmakers, such as Advanced Micro Devices (
AMD ), Qualcomm (
QCOM ) and Micron (
MU ), expressed gratitude that the DOJ was intervening
to prevent intellectual property theft, the companies are also concerned that it could spark retaliation from their Chinese business
partners and result in loss of access to the Chinese market. "Joint ventures, IP sharing agreements and manufacturing partnerships
are the price of admission into China, and thus far, companies are playing ball," Shah explained.
Shah essentially calls the Chinese tariffs a double-edged sword. While tariffs will hurt the Chinese if they can't have access
to freely source U.S. chips, it could also hurt U.S. chipmakers if they lose their business in China. According to Shah's research,
"Over 50% of Chinese semiconductor consumption is supplied by U.S. firms In 2017, China consumed $138bn in integrated
circuits (ICs), of which it only produced $18.5bn domestically, implying China imported $120bn of semis in 2017, up from $98bn in 2016 and $73bn
in 2012."
Trump
and China's President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on Thursday for a two-day
meeting. If the two leaders are unable to come to some sort of trade resolution at the meeting, U.S. tariffs on over $200 billion
worth of Chinese goods will increase from 10% to 25% on January 1, 2019.
"China could source equipment from Europe and Japan; however, we believe there are certain mission-critical tools that can only
be purchased from the U.S. We believe that U.S.-China trade is the biggest theme for U.S. semis and equipment stocks in 2019. Made
in China 2025 can't happen without U.S. semis, and U.S. semis can't grow without China. We hope this backdrop drives resolution,"
Shah said.
Heidi Chung is a reporter at Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter:
@heidi_chung .
R
While US has the upper hand on semis, a trade
embargo on semis will (1) slows down China's move towards achieving Made in China 2025, (2) at the same time give China the impetus
to rush ahead will all resources available to achieve the originally omitted goal of being self-sufficient in tech skills and
technology, and (3) seriously hurt companies like Intel, AMD, Micron, and Qualcom as a huge percentage of their businesses are
with China, and with that portion of their business gone, all these companies will end up in a loss and without the needed financial
resources to invest into new technology in the near future.
Apart from semis, China holds the throat of the US in the supply of
rare earth (used in semis, military weaponry, ans astronomical), as well as antibiotics..
Huge external debt plus high unemployment represents two vital preconditions of rise far right nationalism and fascism in all
its multiple incarnations. In this sence Ulrain, Argentina and Brasil are different links of the common chain of
events.
In a way fascism is a way of reaction of nation deeply in crisis. In essence this is introduction of war time
restrictions on political speech and freedoms of the population. The Catch 22 is that often this is done not so much to
fight external threat, but top preserve the power of existing financial oligarchy. Which fascist after coming to power quickly
include in government and and desire of which are disproportionally obeyed by fascist state.
What in new in XXI century is the huge growth of power on intelligence agencies which is way represent crippling fascism or
neofascism. In a way, then intelligence agencies became political kingmakers (as was the case with the assassination of JFK,
impeachment of Nixon, elections of Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, as well as establishing Mueller commission after Trump
victory), we can speak about sliding the county of the county toward fascism.
Notable quotes:
"... In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that followed. ..."
"... The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015 ..."
"... Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it forward. ..."
"... The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise. Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power. ..."
"... Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a program called Operation Paperclip . Many were dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist. ..."
"... A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason. Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism. ..."
"... The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism ..."
Missing from explanations of the rise of Mr. Bolsonaro is that for the last decade Brazil
has experienced the worst economic
recession in the country's history (graph below). Fourteen million formerly employed,
working age Brazilians are now unemployed. As was true in the U.S. and peripheral Europe from
2008 forward, the liberal response has been austerity as the Brazilian ruling class was made
richer and more politically powerful.
Since 2014, Brazil's public debt/GDP ratio has climbed from 20% to 75%
proclaims a worried IMF. That some fair portion of that climb came from falling GDP due to
economic austerity mandated by the IMF and Wall Street is left unmentioned. A decade of
austerity got liberal President Dilma Rousseff removed from office in 2016 in what can only be
called a Wall Street putsch. Perhaps Bolsonaro will tell Wall Street where to stick its loans
(not).
Back in the U.S., everyone knows that the liberalization of finance and trade in the 1990s
was the result of political calculations. That this liberalization was/is bipartisan suggests
that maybe the political calculations served certain economic interests. Never mind that these
interests were given what they asked for and crashed the economy with it. If economic problems
result from political calculations, the solution is political -- elect better leaders. If they
are driven by economic interests, the solution is to change the way that economic relationships
are organized.
Between 1928 and 1932 German industrial production fell by 58%. By 1933, six million
formerly employed German workers were begging in the streets and digging through garbage
looking for items to sell. The liberal (Socialist Party) response was half-measures and
austerity. Within the liberal frame, the Depression was a political problem to be addressed in
the realm of the political. Centrist accommodation defined the existing realm. Adolf Hitler was
appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the pit of the Great Depression.
In Brazil in the early-mid 2000s, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula,
implemented a Left program that pulled twenty million Brazilians out of poverty. The Brazilian
economy briefly recovered after Wall Street crashed it in 2008 before Brazilian public debt was
used to force the implementation of austerity. Dilma Rousseff capitulated and Brazil re-entered
recession. Rousseff was removed from power in 2016. Hemmed in by Wall Street and
IMF mandated austerity , any liberal government that might be elected would meet the same
fate as Rousseff.
In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that
preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations
and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to
the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial
economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that
followed.
Since 2008, the fiscal structure of the EU (European Union) combined with wildly unbalanced
trade relationships led to a decade of austerity, recession and depression for the European
periphery. In the U.S., by 2009 Wall Street was pushing austerity and cuts to Social Security
and Medicare as necessary to fiscal stability. The consequences of four decades of
financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no means equally shared. Internal and external
class relations were made evident through narrowly distributed booms followed by widely
distributed busts.
With the presumed shared goal of ending the threat of fascism:
The ideological premises behind the logic that claims fascists as the explanation of fascism
emerge from liberalism. The term here is meant as description. Liberalism proceeds from
specific ontological assumptions. Within this temporal frame, a bit of social logic: If
fascists already existed, why didn't fascism? The question of whether to fight fascists or
fascism depends on the answer. The essentialist view is that characteristics intrinsic to
fascists make them fascists. This is the basis of scientific racism. And it underlies fascist
race theory.
The theory of a strongman who exploits people who have a predisposition towards fascism is
essentialist as well if receptivity is intrinsic, e.g. due to psychology, genetics, etc.
Liberal-Left commentary in recent years has tended toward the essentialist view -- that
fascists are born or otherwise predisposed toward fascism. Unconsidered is that non-fascists
are equally determined in this frame. If 'deplorables' were born that way, four decades of
neoliberalism is absolved.
The problem of analogy, the question of what fascism is and how European fascism of the
twentieth century bears relation to the present, can't be answered in the liberal frame. The
rise and fall of a global radical right have been episodic. It has tied in history to the
development of global capitalism in a center-and-periphery model of asymmetrical economic
power. Finance from the center facilitates economic expansion until financial crisis interrupts
the process. Peripheral governments are left to manage debt repayment with collapsed
economies.
Globally, debt has forced policy convergence between political parties of differing
ideologies. European center-left parties have pushed austerity even when ideology would suggest
the opposite. In 2015, self-identified Marxists in Greece's SYRIZA party capitulated to the
austerity and privatization demands from EU creditors led by Germany. Even Lenin negotiated
with Wall Street creditors (on behalf of Russia) in the months after the October Revolution. In
a political frame, the solution from below is to elect leaders and parties who will act on
their rhetoric.
The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate
their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in
payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist
expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't
serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to
repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable
loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015.
Fascist racialization has analog in existing capitalist class relations. Immigration status,
race and gender define a social taxonomy of economic exploitation. Race was invented decades into the
Anglo-American manifestation of slavery to naturalize exploitation of Blacks. Gender difference
represents the evolution of unpaid to paid labor for women in the capitalist West. Claiming
these as causing exploitation gets the temporal sequence wrong. These were / are exploitable
classes before explanations of their special status were created.
This isn't to suggest that capitalist class relations form a complete explanation of fascist
racialization. But the ontological premise that 'freezes,' and thereby reifies racialization,
is fundamental to capitalism. This relates to the point argued below that the educated German
bourgeois, in the form of the Nazi scientists and engineers brought to the U.S. following WWII,
found Nazi racialization plausible through what has long been put forward as an antithetical
mode of understanding. Put differently, it wasn't just the rabble that found grotesque racial
caricatures plausible. The question is why?
Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson
administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and
in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and
images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it
forward.
The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had
no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise.
Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by
the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power.
Since WWI, commercial propaganda has become ubiquitous in the U.S. Advertising firms hire
psychologists to craft advertising campaigns with no regard for the concern that psychological
coercion removes free choice from capitalism. The distinction between political and commercial
propaganda is based on intent, not method. Its use by Woodrow Wilson (above) is instructive: a
large and vocal anti-war movement had legitimate reasons for opposing the U.S. entry into WWI.
The goal of Bernays and Wilson was to stifle political opposition.
Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their
families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a
program called Operation Paperclip . Many were
dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In
contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi
scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent
contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist.
The problem isn't just that many committed Nazis were scientists. Science and technology
created the Nazi war machine. Science and technology were fully integrated into the creation
and running of the Nazi concentration camps. American race 'science,' eugenics, formed the
basis of Nazi race theory. Science and technology formed the functional core of Nazism. And the
Nazi scientists and engineers of Operation Paperclip were major contributors to American
post-war military dominance.
A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious
past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of
liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason.
Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois
basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project
within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism.
This is no doubt disconcerting to theorists of great difference. If Bolsonaro can impose
austerity while maintaining an unjust peace, Wall Street and the IMF will smile and ask for
more. American business interests are already
circling Brazil, knowing that captive consumers combined with enforceable property rights
and a pliable workforce means profits. Where were liberals when the Wall Street that Barack
Obama saved was squeezing the people of Brazil, Spain, Greece and Portugal to repay debts
incurred by the oligarchs? Liberalism is the link between capitalism and fascism, not its
antithesis.
Having long ago abandoned Marx, the American Left is lost in the temporal logic of
liberalism. The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on
Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
"... Big tech companies have bullied competitors and outrun ethical standards in an effort to "own the world," Jean Case, the CEO of the Case Foundation and a former senior executive at AOL, told Yahoo Finance this week. "Many of those big companies are crowding out new innovations of young upstarts. That's not healthy," she said, in response to a question about Google and Facebook. ..."
Big tech companies have bullied competitors and outrun ethical standards in an
effort to "own the world," Jean Case, the CEO of the Case Foundation and a former
senior executive at AOL, told Yahoo Finance this week.
"Many of those big companies are crowding out new innovations of young upstarts.
That's not healthy," she said, in response to a question about Google and
Facebook.
"On the technology side, look, things have changed so fast," Case said. "I think
we just haven't kept pace with some of the ethics policies and frameworks that we
need to put around this stuff...used by millions of millions before thought is
given to implications."
Case made the comments in a conversation that aired on Yahoo Finance on Thursday
at 5 p.m. EST in an episode of "
Influencers
with Andy Serwer
," a weekly interview series with leaders in business,
politics, and entertainment. In addition to her comments on big tech, Case
explained why a woman can be elected president, what National Geographic has done
to thrive amid media industry tumult, and how it felt at AOL in the heady early
days of the internet.
"... We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. ..."
I don't know if I have already posted this here in this blog in the past, but it's as
actual as ever: an interview with Adolf Hitler, by journalist George Sylvester Viereck, in
1923 (the NSDAP was founded in 1920). Viereck was himself a Nazi:
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party
programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of
dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The
Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from
the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain
lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to
disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private
property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is
patriotic.
"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the
National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race
solidarity. To us state and race are one."
"... The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they come across a particularly adorable baby. ..."
"... I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's books and media appearances. ..."
"... George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one). ..."
"... That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems these people don't have a conscience. ..."
"... Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking, oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's. ..."
"... The Deep State Guardian. Why don't they just change their name to 'The Daily Thatcherite' and have done with it. ..."
"... They should just show it's full title: The Guardian Of The Establishment ..."
"... well, yeah. but for us mad people it goes deeper even than that: https://geopolitics.co/2018/12/02/in-memoriam-george-h-scherff-jr-aka-george-hw-bush-sr/ ..."
British and most western media are either in the direct or indirect pay of their governments. What journalist can expose this
for us? Any of you willing to make the biggest scoop of the 21st century? Tom Bradbury at ITN must be on the spook payroll, for
starters? MI6 had foreign correspondents for years, but domestic mouthpieces must now be on the take too? All paid to demonise
Russia and Putin.
The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and
roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they
come across a particularly adorable baby.
Simon 'white helmets' Tisdall is especially egregious – one can imagine him throwing darts at a picture of Putin while
producing his latest homily to the murderous actions of gangsters like Bush and his crime family.
Its hard not to despair now this has become the official face of Britains so-called liberal media.
I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's
books and media appearances. As with Michael White, with whom I had a very illuminating argument via email a few years back.
He *is* an asset, not a journalist (and a massive dick, to boot)
I thought the attitude of the Bush family to their fellow Americans was best illustrated by Barbara's response to the plight of
the homeless victims of Katrina who had been transported to the Houston domed stadium. They spent their nights there sleeping
on hard benches and when good ole Babs heard of it, she opined that they probably had never had it so good so why were they complaining.
Could Mother Theresa have had greater generosity of spirit?
Not just one article, the awful Guardian is full of contents eulogising [yet another] mongrel of a president.
But look at conservative media. The crazy Infowars.com described this Bush as an Anti-American Globalist and Traitor!! .. and
zerohedge.com is celebrating: "The Evil Has Died" and "In 2016 he voted for Hillary Clinton, because the Deep State Swamp sticks
together". https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-02/exploring-dark-side-bush-41
Just tell me, who is the rabid neo-con right-wing rag that is glorifying wars and mass murderers?
The late Robert Parry, sad to say. Maybe that now both the 'MacBeths' are stains on the tarmac – Parry's notes of the bloodstained
legacy of that dynasty can finally be displayed? That Barbara was one cold blooded mother! Would have happily pulled a trigger
on JFK, MLK herself (some think).
Just about the whole century from the setup of the Fed, the two world wars, the depression,
Hitler, Korea, Cuba all of it, had a a Bush hand in it. He was the self crowned Caesar having publicly executed the whole of Camelot
and left us with a poison toad, reminds us how low the Bush's took the USA.
George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual
beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one).
That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems
these people don't have a conscience. If you surround yourself with people of similar mindset and in a climate where war
is considered obligatory for US Presidents, you go into self denial. Wars are probably like an addiction for these people and
once you get to that stage you no longer have a conscience.
During John McCain's funeral where all living ex-presidents were in attendance, someone remarked on Twitter, 'Quick, lock the
church doors and hold the war crimes trial in the church!'. This was a far more realistic observation than the sickening McCain
apologist BBC coverage we were subjected to.
At the weekend I went to the place where Oliver Cromwell lived. There was an American tourist who told us she was shocked about
Oliver Cromwell being dug up from his grave and his head stuck on a pike. She said it was gruesome. I was tempted to say that
at least that was 350 years ago, and similar things are happening today in Iraq, Syria and Libya – all places where the US has
instigated the chaos and supports the perpretators. I resisted the temptation.
I note that Cromwell thought he was chosen by God to do what he did. But again that was in different times and there were some
redeeming factors in what he did, Probably on par with Obama – who wreaked havoc on the Middle East but reached agreements on
Iran and Cuba. Plus Obama looked cool while killing and droning.
But what goes around comes around. I sense the pure evil involved in the current regime change wars, government, media etc
will pay a heavy price – whether in this life or the next.
The state controlled BBC has just done another puff piece on McCain saying what a splendid chap and great statesman and all round
good egg he was.
The MSM likes to slag off Vlad The Bad by droning on about how he was in the KGB. But Bush wasn't just IN the CIA, he was the
BOSS of the CIA, at a time when hundreds of thousands of Central American peasant farmers and Indians were being killed by CIA
trained and orchestrated death squads.
Mark: jayzus Mark, don't you just want to projectile vomit when you see all this absolute bullshit, just straight out revising
of history, just the lies, on and on . I was involved in a Central American solidarity group in the 1980s – early 90s here in
Aussie, found out then all about U.S style 'democracatic values' and 'human rights concerns' and death squads and various fascists
fully supported by the United States, and places like Guatemala and Nicaragua. Its all an illusion for 'polite society' and the
gullible to believe in. Sigh
I can't remember the exact figures but I think it was over 200,000 murdered in Guatemala out of a population of 4 million. It
was the same story in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Colombia. And of course the CIA satrap Noriega was hauled off in chains
when that country was invaded. But Uncle Sam is finally paying a price for his antics south of the border. Those societies were
wrecked and brutalised beyond repair. There is now an unbelievably high murder rate of women in Guatemala. Millions of those people
have sought some kind of refuge in the belly of the beast, causing an immigration crisis, with an illegal immigrant population
that may be as high as 30 million. Hence all the uproar over Trump's wall. The immigration crisis was a factor in Trump's election,
just as the tidal wave of migrants from the destroyed countries of the Middle East was a factor in Brexit. Cameron, Sarko and
Clinton thought it was a spiffing idea and quite a wizard wheeze to bomb Libya back to the Stone Age. So we now have a Mad Max
failed state complete with warlords and slave markets just across the Med. What goes around, comes around. You can't expect to
export violence and mayhem abroad and remain immune to it at home.
Mark: after Efrain Rios Montt seized power in a coup in Guatemala in 1982, US Ambassador Frederick Chapin declared that thanks
to the coup of Rios Montt "the Guatemalan Govt has come out of the darkness into the light". That sums it up in one sentence,
and you're probably aware of the mass killing and disappearances under his genocidal tyranny. Reagan kindly submitted that Rios
Montt was 'getting a bum rap on human rights, the same Reagan who declared the Contra's were 'The moral equal of our founding
fathers'. In El Salvador, the same mass slaughter, the same mass upheaval, and even murdering Archbishop Romero. You only need
to look at what happened in Central & South America to understand what the United States really represents.
That's entirely right. People understandably despise and revile people like Brady and Hindley, Sutcliffe, Dahmer, Bundy and the
like. But they killed a handful of people and were often very damaged individuals to begin with. And at least they did their own
dirty work. Subhuman scum sucking filth like Bush, Bush 2, Obama, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Blair, Straw and Campbell
are a thousand times worse. They kill millions without getting their hands dirty, and preen and posture as great statesmen and
public servants, expecting deference and state funerals and puff piece obituaries from nauseating, loathsome, lickspittle media
hacks like Tisdall.
Nailed it Kit. The attempt at revionism and rewriting history by these craven creatures, these sycophantic slimebag shills for
Imperialism and War and the Anglo Zionist Empire. They don't speak truth to power, they protect and grovel to the powerful. The
eulogising and fawning of Bush was stomach churning, as it was for the arch Imperialist McCain when he croaked. Thank God for
alternative news sites, and yeah Caitlin Johnston @ medium nailed it as well, as Fair Dinkum mentioned. Where's John Pilger when
you need him?
What no one seems to realize is that the VP often takes charge of the US National Security Council when POTUS is not able to attend
meetings, which are held weekly. Under Eisenhower it was Richard Nixon who often took charge of the meetings -- Tim Weiner's book
"Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" gives some details on this. Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking,
oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was
a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's.
I don't know but as a fairly apolitical individual, I never much bothered with the Kennedy Assasination. All that changed when
during the fiftieth anniversary, BBC Radio Four ran a program which included an interview with the Dallas police officer who was
handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald when he was shot by Jack Ruby. The consensus of that program was that the case was open shut and
Oswald did it. Around that time, several newspapers in the UK featured articles claiming that Oswald acted alone.
Whether or not anyone actively involved still lives, their descendants still do and the probable organising body too. There
still appears to be determination in some quarters to spread disinformation about the case. Given that as long ago as the late
seventies the House of Representatives Assassination Committee concluded that JFK's death was probably the consequence of a conspiracy,
determination amongst the mainstream media to lay Kennedy's death at the hands of Oswald alone suggests that there is still determination
that the truth never becomes public.
I'm sickened by the Guardian's and BBC's obedience to the US neocon project to seek, or create, and destroy "enemies" and whilst
ignoring all the disgusting atrocities that arise as a consequence.
The Guardian is not even worth the paper it's printed on. It's become The Guardian Of The Establishment rather than of the
Truth which it used to proclaim.
It is in danger of losing its budgie-cage-liner status. If budgies can talk they may refuse to evacuate on it. What kind of person
maintains ties to such a a poor excuse for cage toiletry. The moral crunch time for their journalists (actually their opinionists)
came and went a long time ago.
What a great piece. My parents knew them in New York and they came over once and left behind an embossed packet of White House
cigs. I asked my father (before he died) what he thought of them and all he ever said was he thought that Barbara was the intellect
in the family.
Bloody annoying, thanks Pater.
"The induction of DU weapons in 1991 in Iraq broke a 46-year taboo. This Trojan Horse of nuclear war continues to be used more
and more. DU remains radioactive longer than the age of the earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years). The long-term effects from
over a decade of DU exposures are devastating. The increased quantities of radioactive material used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5
times greater than Iraq, 1991. In Iraq, 2003, they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991, and will travel through a larger
area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000-mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected
by radiation poisoning
"DU remains radioactive longer than [ ] 4.5 billion years." It's worse than that. It loses half of its radioactivity in that time.
The good news is that that slow release means "D"U doesn't zap you much. The bad news is it's chemically toxic, like a heavy metal
(which it is).
Also no mention of the body of circumstantial evidence linking Bush to JFK's murder, though Bush repeatedly insisted that he couldn't
recall his whereabouts that day (I can precisely recall where I was, and I was 9 years old in 1963), in spite of the fact that
solid documentary evidence exists that puts him in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963.
The very first Google Search I did was this, (George H.W. Bush+November 22, 1963) and it yielded a page like the following link,
which began my research into the JFK Assassination.
Can the elite be afflicted by some mass disease. Is Neoconservatism a deadly infection ?
Theoretically Democracy depends on information freely available and responsibility of the citizenry to make decisions based on
that information. The political elites have made certain precious little of reliable, unclouded and relevant information ever gets
broadcast even while popularizing, promoting and rewarding every form of misrepresentation, ignorance and irresponsibility. In
other words they spearheaded a dangerous disease to stay in power. And eventually got infected themselves.
Notable quotes:
"... "But what if the elites get things wrong? What if the policies they promulgate produce grotesque inequality or lead to permanent war? Who then has the authority to disregard the guardians, if not the people themselves? How else will the elites come to recognize their folly and change course?" ..."
"... That is how they maintain control and manipulate government to facilitate their own interests to the detriment of the rest of society. Bretix and President Trump have upset their apple cart, which they felt certain was invulnerable and immune to challenge. ..."
"... The elites aren't interested in polls showing Americans want out of Syria and Afghanistan, are they? Can't have mere citizens having influencing decisions like that. ..."
"... An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr Bacevich are largely the products of the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those institutions have indoctrinated rather than educated. ..."
"... As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the primitiveness of their views and their inability to think - to say nothing of their fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and evil - begin to have real effect. ..."
"But what if the elites get things wrong? What if the policies they promulgate produce
grotesque inequality or lead to permanent war? Who then has the authority to disregard the
guardians, if not the people themselves? How else will the elites come to recognize their
folly and change course?"
What if, on election day, you only have a choice between 2 candidates. Both favoring all
the wrong choices, but one tends to talk up Christianity and family and the other talks up
diversity.
And both get their funding from the very wealthy and corporations. And any 3rd choices
would be "throwing your vote away". How would you ever get to vote for someone who might
change course?
Democracy has little to actually do with choice or power.
mlopez, January 18, 2019 at 6:22 pm
GB may not have been any utopia in 1914, but it was certainly geo-politically dominant. It's common people's social,
economic and cultural living standards most assuredly was vastly improved over Russian, or European peasants. There can be no
serious comparison with third world countries and regions.
As for the US, there can be absolutely no debate about its own dominance, or material standard of living after 1945 as
compared to any where else in the world. More importantly, even uneducated and very contemporary observers were capable of
recognizing how our elites had sold out their interests in favor of the furtherance of their own.
If we are on about democratic government, then it's been generations since either country and their peoples have had any
real democracy. Democracy depends on information freely available and responsibility of the citizenry to make decisions based
on that information. The political elites have made certain precious little of reliable, unclouded and relevant information
ever gets broadcast even while popularizing, promoting and rewarding every form of misrepresentation, ignorance and
irresponsibility.
That is how they maintain control and manipulate government to facilitate their own interests to the detriment of the
rest of society. Bretix and President Trump have upset their apple cart, which they felt certain was invulnerable and immune
to challenge.
Hello / Goodbye, January 19, 2019 at 11:40 am
The elites aren't interested in polls showing Americans want out of Syria and Afghanistan, are they? Can't have mere
citizens having influencing decisions like that.
Patzinak, January 19, 2019 at 5:07 pm
What ineffable flummadiddle!
Prominent Brexiteers include Boris Johnson (dual UK/US citizenship, educated in Brussels and at Eton and Oxford, of mixed
ancestry, including a link - by illegitimate descent - to the royal houses of Prussia and the UK); Jacob Rees-Mogg (son of a
baron, educated at Eton and Oxford, amassed a solid fortune via hedge fund management); Arron Banks (millionaire, bankroller
of UKIP, made to the Brexit campaign the largest ever political donation in UK politics).
So much for "the elite" being against Brexit!
But the main problem with Brexit is this. Having voted by a slim margin in favour of Brexit, the Great British Public
then, in the general election, denied a majority to the government that had undertaken to implement it, and elected a
Parliament of whom, by a rough estimate, two thirds oppose Brexit.
It ain't that "the elite" got "things wrong". It's that bloody Joe Public can't make his mind what to do - and go through
with it.
Rossbach, January 20, 2019 at 2:14 pm
"Whether the imagined utopia of a dominant Great Britain prior to 1914 or a dominant America after 1945 ever actually
existed is beside the point."
It wasn't to restore any defunct utopia that led people to vote for Brexit or Donald Trump; it was to check the descent of
the Anglosphere into the totalitarian dystopia of forced multi-cultural globalism that caused voters to reject the EU in
Britain and Hillary Clinton in the US. It is because they believed that only with the preservation of their national
independence was there any chance or hope for a restoration of individual liberty that our people voted as they did.
Ratings System, January 17, 2019 at 1:27 pm
It's why they won't enjoy their privileges much longer. That stale charade can't and won't last.
We don't have a meritocracy. We have a pseudo-meritocracy with an unduly large contingent of aliens, liars, cheats,
frauds, and incompetents. They give each other top marks, speak each other's PC language, and hire each other's kids. And
they don't understand why things are falling apart, and why they are increasingly hated by real Americans.
A very nasty decade or two is coming our way, but after we've swept out the filth there will be a good chance that
Americans will be Americans again.
Paul Reidinger, January 17, 2019 at 2:03 pm
An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr Bacevich are largely the products of
the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those
institutions have indoctrinated rather than educated.
As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the primitiveness of their views and
their inability to think - to say nothing of their fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and
evil - begin to have real effect. The new dark age is no longer imminent. It is here, and it is them. I see no way to
rectify the damage. When minds are ruined young, they remain ruined.
Essentially they are trying to control the US foreign policy. That's a sign of the slide to neofascism as under
neofascism intelligence agencies have a political role and are instrumental in crashing the dissent.
Notable quotes:
"... The Times article goes on to describe how FBI officials monitored the platform adopted at the Republican National Convention, reporting that the spy agency "watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia." That is, the nation's top police agency was concerned that the positions adopted contravened certain basic tenets of dominant sections of the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... By what constitutional authority can the FBI, based on political positions adopted by one or the other of the two main capitalist parties, open up a secret investigation into treason and conspiracy? Such an operation bespeaks a police state and recalls the methods of the Stalinist NKVD. ..."
"... The operations of the FBI, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Times , recall the paranoid rantings of the John Birch Society, the ultra-right group formed in the 1950s, whose founder, Robert Welch, notoriously claimed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former World War II commander of Allied forces in Europe, was a "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy." ..."
"... Claims that once were the province of an extremist group, on the fringes of American politics, are now embraced by the military-intelligence apparatus, appear on the front page of the most influential American daily newspaper, and dominate the network and cable television news. ..."
"... But these allegations have no credibility. Why should anyone believe claims that Trump, at age 70, after decades as a real estate mogul, con man and media celebrity, with a billion-dollar fortune, suddenly decided to throw in his lot with Vladimir Putin? Even the Times report itself concedes, in a single sentence buried in the 2,000-word text, "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials." ..."
The Times claims that Trump "had caught the attention of FBI counterintelligence agents when
he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack the emails of his
opponent, Hillary Clinton." Given that this was a sarcastic campaign remark directed against
Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, and delivered at a
public news conference, Trump's sally can hardly be construed as evidence of a conspiracy.
The Times article goes on to describe how FBI officials monitored the platform adopted at
the Republican National Convention, reporting that the spy agency "watched with alarm as the
Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to
benefit Russia." That is, the nation's top police agency was concerned that the positions
adopted contravened certain basic tenets of dominant sections of the foreign policy
establishment.
By what constitutional authority can the FBI, based on political positions adopted by one or
the other of the two main capitalist parties, open up a secret investigation into treason and
conspiracy? Such an operation bespeaks a police state and recalls the methods of the Stalinist
NKVD.
The agency also investigated four of Trump's campaign aides over possible ties to Russia,
and even made use of the notorious Steele dossier, consisting of anti-Trump gossip collated
from Russian sources by a former British intelligence agent on the payroll of the Democratic
Party.
After Trump fired Comey, according to the Times , "law enforcement officials became so
concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working
on behalf of Russia against American interests Counterintelligence investigators had to
consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national
security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or
had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence."
The operations of the FBI, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Times , recall the paranoid
rantings of the John Birch Society, the ultra-right group formed in the 1950s, whose founder,
Robert Welch, notoriously claimed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former World War II
commander of Allied forces in Europe, was a "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist
conspiracy."
Claims that once were the province of an extremist group, on the fringes of American
politics, are now embraced by the military-intelligence apparatus, appear on the front page of
the most influential American daily newspaper, and dominate the network and cable television
news.
But these allegations have no credibility. Why should anyone believe claims that Trump, at
age 70, after decades as a real estate mogul, con man and media celebrity, with a
billion-dollar fortune, suddenly decided to throw in his lot with Vladimir Putin? Even the
Times report itself concedes, in a single sentence buried in the 2,000-word text, "No evidence
has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian
government officials."
While there is no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Moscow, the Times report itself
is evidence of a conspiracy involving the intelligence agencies and the corporate media to
overturn the 2016 presidential election - which Trump won, albeit within the undemocratic
framework of the Electoral College - and install a government that would differ from Trump's
chiefly in being more committed to military confrontation with Russia in Syria, Ukraine and
elsewhere.
A secret security investigation by a powerful police agency directed against an elected
president or prime minister can be described as nothing other than the antechamber to a coup by
the military or intelligence services.
Historically, the FBI has been at the center of such dangers in the United States. Its
founding director, J. Edgar Hoover, was notorious for his unchecked power, particularly during
the period of the McCarthy anticommunist witch hunt, when he accumulated dossiers on virtually
every Democratic and Republican politician and authorized widespread spying on civil rights and
antiwar groups.
President John F. Kennedy was so concerned that he installed his brother Robert as attorney
general - and nominal superior to Hoover - to keep watch over the bureau. That did not save
Kennedy from assassination in 1963 , an event linked in still undisclosed ways to ultra-right
circles, including Cuban exiles embittered by the Bay of Pigs disaster, Southern
segregationists, and sections of the military-intelligence apparatus up in arms over Kennedy's
signing of a nuclear test ban treaty with Moscow.
The New York Times report - and a companion piece published Sunday in the Washington Post
claiming that Trump has kept secret key details of his private conversations with Putin - serve
to legitimize antidemocratic and unconstitutional conduct by the military-intelligence
apparatus .
These reports shed light on the striking complacency in the "mainstream" media over Trump's
threats to declare a national emergency, using the pretext of his conflict with congressional
Democrats over funding of a border wall, which has led to a three-week-long partial shutdown of
the federal government.
If one takes for good coin the main contention of the reports by the two newspapers, their
acquiescence in a potential Trump declaration of emergency rule is inexplicable. After all, if
Trump is Putin's agent, then a Trump declaration of a state of emergency, giving him sweeping,
near-absolute authority, would put the United States under the control of Moscow.
The explanation is that the Times and the Post welcome the discussion of emergency rule, to
prepare the forces of the state for coming conflicts with the working class. Their only
disagreement with Trump is over which faction of the ruling elite, Trump or his opponents in
the Democratic Party, should direct the repression.
One thing is certain: if Trump declares a national emergency, or if, as the Post suggested
in an editorial, his opponents in the ruling elite declare a national emergency over alleged
Russian "meddling" as part an effort to remove him, it will represent an irrevocable break with
democracy.
It is impossible to determine which side in this sordid conflict is more reactionary. The
working class is confronted with two alternatives :
either the present political crisis will be resolved by one faction of the ruling elite
moving against the other, using the methods of palace coup and dictatorship, whose essential
target is the working class,
or workers will move en masse against the political establishment as a whole and the
capitalist system that it defends.
We've known since WW2, that fighting fascism is difficult. Benito Mussolini defined fascism
as "Barely able to slip a cigarette paper between business and government." And when business
runs government, we have even exceeded fascism. The new battle against fascism is not going
to be easy.
"... The point of this practice is to propagate lies into the public consciousness. It's a method that can be used to distract and disseminate and divide. The accuracy of the statement is immaterial. ..."
"... The point is, once it has been said it cannot be unsaid. There are countless examples: "Assange was working for Russia", "Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress", "Russia hacked the US election", "Donald Trump worked for the KGB", "Assad gassed his own people", "Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite". The list goes on and on and on. None these have been proven. All were asserted without evidence, fiercely defended as facts, and then discretely qualified. ..."
"... The lie was told, the audience laughed, the reality was created. "Labour are behind in the polls, anybody who says otherwise is a laughingstock" . The lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on. That's why fake news is so important to them, and so dangerous us. ..."
Trump has been a disappointment to his base and is yet to implement half the policies he discussed on the campaign trail, but
he's not fully and totally being controlled by the warhawking Deep State yet, either. His policy of peace with North Korea and decisions
to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan show that there is a tug-of-war ongoing inside the administration. It's probably no coincidence
that this latest of many "bombshells" comes so quickly
on the heels of Trump's announcement of the Syria withdrawal. Careful "leaks", planted stories and social media witch-hunts remind
Trump how precarious his position is, whilst simultaneously distracting the public – both pro-Trump and anti-Trump – from real issues.
The case-specific "why?" doesn't matter so much as the general aim of this type of manipulation. The important question
is: Why does the media tell lies if they know they will be revealed as such? Clearly, the lies serve a purpose, regardless of their
retraction or qualification. Telling a lie loudly and then taking it back quietly is an old propaganda trick – it allows the paper
to maintain a facade of "accountability".
The point of this practice is to propagate lies into the public consciousness. It's a method that can be used to distract
and disseminate and divide. The accuracy of the statement is immaterial.
The point is, once it has been said it cannot be unsaid. There are countless examples: "Assange was working for Russia", "Trump
ordered Cohen to lie to Congress", "Russia hacked the US election", "Donald Trump worked for the KGB", "Assad gassed his own people",
"Jeremy Corbyn is an antisemite". The list goes on and on and on. None these have been proven. All were asserted without evidence,
fiercely defended as facts, and then discretely qualified.
That is the purpose of "fake news", to forge the Empire's
"created
reality" , and force us all to live in it. These are world-shaping, policy-informing, news-dominating narratives and are nothing
but feathers in the wind .
A perfect exemplar of this occurred just two days ago on the BBC's flagship Political debate show Question Time :
me title= The (notionally impartial) host not only sided with right-wing author Isabel Oakeshott in criticising
Labour's polling, but then joined in mocking the Labour MP Diane Abbott for attempting to correct the record. Both Oakeshott and
Fiona Bruce, the host, were
factually incorrect – as shown a hundred times over since. But that doesn't matter.
The lie was told, the audience laughed, the reality was created. "Labour are behind in the polls, anybody who says otherwise
is a laughingstock" . The lie goes around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on. That's why fake news is so important
to them, and so dangerous us.
Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now
he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.
Taking Stock of Ukraine's Achievements Amidst Russia's Aggression
Five years ago, the Ukrainian people staged a peaceful "revolution of dignity" against a
corrupt regime sponsored by the Kremlin. They stood firm even under gunfire and it was the
discredited President Viktor Yanukovych who eventually retreated and took refuge in Russia.
With Moscow engaging in renewed attacks against Ukraine in the Sea of Azov it is important to
take stock of Ukraine's achievements since those fateful days in Kyiv's Independence
Square."
Talk about Orwellian double speak. Only Russiagaters would eat that **** up in their stupidity
.
pparalegal 10 hours ago (Edited)
Oligarchs, corporations and want to be psychopathic rulers
East and West run the political/ think tank know-it-all class. All profit by it. Governments
start wars, not people.
I am still waiting for an explanation of how the mythical beast New Russia will own the USA
and what they will do with it after that. If we don't bomb the s**t out of some third country
because we can. I am much more concerned about the in house mad cows we have elected to boss the
American public and take the gold out of my teeth for the greater good..
Helg Saracen 10 hours
ago (Edited)
I'm just curious. How many real estate over the past 15 years has been bought by the
Chinese in New York, Chicago and California? How many brands, businesses were bought by the
Chinese from the Americans? How many were "borrowed" technology? And how many Russians bought
(rich Jews from Russia cannot be taken into account, they came to their relatives, well, they
bought a little of everything)? :( 30 years ago, the USSR was communist, and the US was
capitalist, now Russia has become capitalist, and the USA (I don't even know how to say) has
become an elite club for financial bandits manipulating sheep under the name "American Nation".
Mantis964 6 hours ago
and the USA (I don't even know how to say) has become an elite club for
financial bandits manipulating sheep under the name "American Nation".
Even as an old timer, I am drawn to the arguments made by our "Dissident Right"(DR), who seek
to find a Third Way between destructive international capitalism and destructive
international socialism. That movement is Nationalism. Some might call it Fascism, though
that loaded term has become far too pejorative. It is not surprising that one of the heroes
of the US DR is Mr. Putin.
The people making the best oral arguments for this third way that I've listened to thus
far are Mike Enoch and Eric Striker. Do not dismiss them lightly. They are obviously highly
intelligent and their movement is growing. As young white males are increasingly marginalized
and oppressed by the dominant culture, they have nowhere else to go. Old-time GOP civic
nationalism is dead, killed by the Diversity Cult that they foolishly embraced. On their own,
after Trump, and given the snowballing demographic catastrophe, the GOP could never again win
another national election. At some point there will be an uprising, unless young
indoctrinated males have been become like frogs in slowly boiling water, who don't realize
they are being scalded alive until it is too late.
"... In addition, Trump is a pretend President. He doesn't control his own government. Hell, a single judge anywhere in the hinterlands evidently has the power to veto pretty much whatever the Trumpster does. It's clear that the real power resides in the hands of the Ruling Class, most of whom are unelected and unaccountable. Judges. Bureaucrats. Regulators. The Deep State. They now run the show. ..."
Great article and right on target. In fact, we don't have a real democracy anymore. We have a
Potemkin Village democracy. Our national legislature is paralyzed and impotent. And honestly,
that's the way its membership likes it. Pretend to govern. Hold tight to the seats of
privilege and status.
In addition, Trump is a pretend President. He doesn't control his own government. Hell, a
single judge anywhere in the hinterlands evidently has the power to veto pretty much whatever
the Trumpster does. It's clear that the real power resides in the hands of the Ruling Class,
most of whom are unelected and unaccountable. Judges. Bureaucrats. Regulators. The Deep
State. They now run the show.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media plays the role of Orwell's Squealer the Pig from Animal
Farm. Propagandists. Purveyors of fake news and fake truth. This is not going to end well.
The only question is how and when the ending comes.
"... is a retired civil servant living in London and consequently old enough to remember what life was like before political correctness. He runs the Living In A Madhouse and England Calling blogs. ..."
So what is really happening -- in the U.K. and the U.S.?
The Deep State is often portrayed as a conspiracy. In fact, it is better thought of as a
blind sociological event. There is no group of conscious conspirators, simply people being
groomed to have the same opinions or at least saying they do.
Link Bookmark What has happened in the UK (and the rest for the West to varying degrees) is
the
success of the long
march through the institutions . That is what ultimately has given the UK an elite (
politicians ,
mediafolk , teachers etc) who are overwhelmingly Politically Correct internationalists. And
it's those people who are at the forefront of the attempts to sabotage Brexit.
How did it come about? A German student leader of the 1960s Rudi Dutschke,
echoing the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci , put forward
the idea whereby societies could be subverted
from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain
positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be enough of such people to change the
policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones. That point was reached in
the UK at least 50 years ago and the Politically Correct stranglehold on our society is now
complete.
The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit and even
overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures, denigrate their own
societies, traduce the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the
pernicious Totalitarian creed of Cultural Marxism which has "anti-racism" (in reality
anti-white racism) at its heart. The last brick in the Politically Correct building is the
increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who refuses to toe the line -- increasingly
including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment.
That is why Western politics until recently has been so ideologically monotone. Brexit was a
revolt against that mentality.
Most MPs overtly or tacitly supported the idea of the referendum and its result by promising
it in election manifestos, in Parliament and through their passage by large majorities of the
legislation needed to both set up the referendum and make provision for its implementation.
But by doing so, MPs forfeited their right to do anything other honour the result of the
referendum. That applies just as much to Remainer MPs as Leaver MPs.
Sadly, the behaviour of the most committed Remainers with power and influence (including
many MPs and peers in the House of Lords) has shattered utterly the idea that the UK is a fully
functioning democracy. Rather, it is an elective oligarchy whereby the electorate are offered
an opportunity every few years to choose between competing parts of the elite -- an elite in
the UK whose general political ideas are largely held in common and go against the interests
and wishes of most of the electorate.
None of this should be a surprise. The sad truth: the central political question in all
Western societies is -- how far will the masses be able to control the naturally-abusive
tendencies of the elite?
Robert Henderson [ Email him ]is a retired civil servant living in
London and consequently old enough to remember what life was like before political correctness.
He runs the Living In A
Madhouse and England Calling
blogs.
A great man once wrote that the "big lie" had a force of credulity among the broad masses, as
the latter were wont to engage in lying about minor quotidian matters of little or no
significance while the big lies were engaged in by the mainstream press, dominated by the
usual tribal suspects.
It was the case with blaming General Ludendorff for Germany's defeat, and it is the same
case today, 100 years after the fact.
The Mockingbird Media lies and equivocates about everything. Insofar as the deep state
spider's web of hegemony spreads all over the world and becomes more odious, the lies become
more copious and more predictable, and their acceptance relies upon the lever of public
credulity and kosher Newspeak.
What the unconditional and incorrigible Trumpetistas do not realize is that those of us- a
very large plurality of of Trump supporters- voted for him because he was not Hillary Clinton
and had pledged to keep us out of foreign wars. We will neither support, nor abet, foreign
wars for the sake of Israel, whether they are started by Trump or anyone else. Intervention
in Syria against the Assad regime is a no go. Trump cannot hope to compare himself to Assad,
since the latter has formed a real and effective alliance against the Christian hating head
choppers with Russia and Iran. Trump is totally clueless with respect to geopolitics. He is a
rank amateur.
It makes complete sense if one simply looks at the British Establishment's prior behavior of
intentionally starting world wars at the order of the Society of the Elect. It's all in the
CFR's archives. Their guilt in starting WW1 is emphatically admitted and documented in
roughly the first 200 pages of the following book. http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf
"In 2016 an official British government inquiry determined that Bush and Blair had indeed
together rushed to war. The Global Establishment has nevertheless rewarded Tony Blair for his
loyalty with Clintonesque generosity. He has enjoyed a number of well-paid sinecures and is
now worth in excess of $100 million."
-- The character of Blair and the Establishment is well established: Blair is a major war
criminal supported by the major war profiteers. His children and grandchildren are a progeny
of a horrible criminal.
What is truly amazing is the complacency of the Roman Catholic Church that still has not
excommunicated and anathematized the mass murderer. Blair should be haunted and hunted for
his crimes against humanity.
With age, Blair's face has become expressively evil. His wife Theresa Cara "Cherie" Blair
shows the same acute ugliness coming from her rotten soul of a war profiteer.
Keep in mind how long ago all this is:
Skripal was recruited around 1990 and arrested in 2004. Guess that the Russian attitude
towards Skripal took the chaos of the 90's as mitigating circumstances into account.
Skripal served his sentence of only 13 years till 2010 when he was pardoned and given the
option to leave. Russia did not revoke Skripal's citizenship. The UK issued Skripal a
passport too. On arrival in the UK Skripak was extensively debriefed by UK intelligence
services. Skripal has lived for 8 years in the UK now.
And now out of the blue this incident nicely dovetailing with May ratcheted up anti Russia
language only a few months before this false flag incident and the rapidly failing traction
of the Steele/Orbis/MI6 instigated Russia collusion story on the basis of that fake Trump
Dossier. By the way Orbis affiliated Steele and Miller have been among Skripal's
handlers.
Good article.
The Skipnal affair has been an utter disgrace from day one. May & Boris are a shame on
the UK fully reminesent of that utter dog, Blair.
The fact that the msm still babbles on about Russia & Skipnal is indicative of their
monumental contempt for the public & factual balanced reporting .well what's new, I guess
?
Paul Craig Roberts is correct when quoting The Saker:
"The Russian view is simple: the West is ruled by a gang of thugs supported by an
infinitely lying and hypocritical media while the general public in the West has been
hopelessly zombified." -- The Saker
These ridiculous, suicidal gas attacks by Assad seem to coincide not only with battleground
victories against the head-choppers, but co-incidentally with Israel's murderous attacks on
unarmed Palestinians "throwing stones".
What nobody seems to have picked up is the emphasis – and red lines – on Gas;
gas, gas attacks. Why is gas so much worse than being dismembered, disembowelled, and
mutilated by high explosives? Certainly I would favour unconsciousness and death by gas
before being smashed to pieces by depleted uranium.
These relentlessly repeated claims are an exercise with the dual purpose of providing a
subliminal message about the greatest tragedy in human history, repeated ad nauseam. The
massive 'gassing' of European Jews some 65 years ago. Lest we forget.
Compared with the Litvinenko umbrella attack with its tip having been dipped in an Amazonian
Indians' style curare variant of Polonium the intelligence level of the MI6 & CIA seems
to have hit the ground with the twofold miracle of the dead being raised. Now the miracles
are posing a big problem for the demonizers of Russia & President Putin: how to spirit
these two living & talking people away, who have returned from the dead, where they were
supposed to be so safe and well for all truth-loving investigators. This whole story seems to
unfold like a Jesus Christ Superstar sequel with James Bond appetizers having been added. At
present the roles have been reversed: the Russians being the champions of free will and the
Western intelligence services being the Joker.
Until some kind of sanity returns to this planet and war mongering gangsters like the Bush
and Clinton Mobs, Blair, Obama and a host of Pentagon generals, along with their boot-licking
MSM are indicted, tried for crimes against humanity and war crimes, found guilty and
sentences carried out, there will be no peace on Earth, just an endless series of False
Flags, hysterical reactions by the ones who were behind the False Flags and more wars.
It does look rather like those Syrian chemical weapon attacks that happen whenever the rebels
are about to be defeated.
I am pretty sure that it was not ordered within the British government and that most of
the British government don't know where it came from, but are willing to believe it was
Russia.
While the CIA does have plenty of form on assassinations, the risk if they were found to
be assassinating in Britain seems quite high due to the close CIA links with the UK
intelligence sector. But CIA agents could have paid someone else to do it.
Mossad is the one group that can act freely in the UK, has a record of assassinating
scientists, engineers etc here, and unlike CIA, can take the risk of being caught. So it's a
possibility – OTOH Israel has shown a lot less anti-Russian hatred than the US Deep
State has.
Normally I'd assume it was indeed Russia – I thought there was plenty of evidence
the Polonium poisoning was Russia – and it still seems possible, but US or Mossad must
be at least equally likely in this case. It's just possible it could have been British
initiated but I doubt it.
I do think it's most likely the person who actually poisoned them was not an employee of
any agency.
Theresa May as more evil than Bill Clinton? That will sound odd to some, but I think it is
true. Hillary is the pure evil half of the Clinton marriage. Bill is simply charming and
filled with a desire to amass enough power to have a group adore him as he finds new panties
to explore.
May is English, and she has the very long line of Brit Empire secret service evil at her
disposal. And her move is a bold one. What it means is that she is signaling that at least if
she is PM, the UK could replace the US as Fearless Leader of the actual New World Order,
which is the WASP Empire with Israel and worldwide Jewry as Junior Partner #1 and Saudi
Arabia elevated to Junior Partner #2 in an insane attempt to make Israel secure forever.
The English have never been happy that the lowly Americans leaped them as A-#1 of the WASP
Empire, and being English they have no permanent alliances, no permanent allies, not even kin
(perhaps especially kin – which type and degree of ruthlessness impresses all
Semites).
This alliance was sealed by none other than the very epitome of WASP culture: Mr.
Archetypal WASP himself, Oliver Cromwell. The Anglo-Saxon alliance with Jews precisely to
wage wars against non-WASP white Christians was the logical (and inevitable if WASP culture
were to acquire large scale political power) .
By the Victorian era, virtually all Elite Brit WASPs were knowing philoSemites. The new
twist was that a growing number of them were becoming obsessed with Arabs and/or Islam.
decades before the Balfour Declaration, the Brit WASP Elites were wrangling among themselves
over how best to use the largest and wealthiest Empire in world history to express its
philoSemtism.
The solution recently agreed upon was to elevate the Saudis. The assumption is that as the
Saudis control the actual land of Mohammed, if they are elevated to suzerainty over not
merely all Arabs but the entire Islamic Middle East, then the entire Islamic world can be
controlled, including to allow Israel to exist in 'peace.'
And that means all that oil is under the indirect, but very firm, control of the WASP
Empire, or as The Saker calls it: the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
Of course, the Saudi royal family is the most amorally vicious power party in the Middle
East. They would slaughter half the Sunni Arabs in order to become unrivaled suzerain over
the entire Islamic world. Such monstrousness makes the House of Saud exactly the type partner
that those who control the WASP Empire want as partners.
The Russians are in the way of that beautiful plan of world domination. Russians have
common sense and, much worse, they express it, even publicly. Russians know that Sunni Islam
is a much worse threat to the world than is Shiite Islam. The Russians know that the Iranians
are much more honorable and moral than are the Saudis. The Russians know that as bad as the
Turks are, they are more honorable and trustworthy than the Saudis.
And the Russians also know that the Anglo-Zionist Empire would be tickled pink to make all
non-WASP Elite whites – all in the world – a permanent serf class, treated the
way Cromwell treated the Irish, the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians.
I challenge anyone to name a modern war prosecuted by the US government and its allies that
did not involve at its root the direct fabrication of blatant lies on enormous levels, both
as a casus belli and also to manipulate public opinion in favor of hostilities.
The clandestine activity represented by these *provocations* isn't even good spycraft. The
Skripal case and the latest use of chlorine gas in Syria are risible, clumsy, amateur
attempts to wangle the empire into war that the callowest rube could see through. And yet,
it's working its magic on the media. The politicians, suborned by the war machine, give
unanimous bipartisan assent.
@Giuseppe
Saddam's WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., etc. And now a ridiculous false flag attack in Syria. Did
it take place at all? But the narrative is all. The press in the USA is more effectively
controlled and conformist than in Germany in the late 1930s and nobody goes around beating up
journalists or sending them to a KZ. The Syrian Gov't is winning the civil war, things are
going well but what Assad really needs is to have the crap bombed out of his military by
Uncle Sam. What transparent bullshit.
@DESERT
FOX Agreed to all you said, but I would include the assassination of JFK and his brother,
and likely Martin Luther King Jr.
And each time they took out a great American, they used that assassination to push a
destructive narrative: With the killing of MLK they pinned the killing on a white southern
man, thus pushing their white hate narrative.
With 9/11 is was all about stoking hate of Muslims
These creatures lie as easily as breath, and they have all the money in the world to push
their lies.
@jacques
sheete The intent of my post was to show that the MSM here is conformist and doesn't like
to stray far from what the USG is claiming and what other journalists are writing. Rather
than explore the topics you raise, as worthy of exploration as they might be, I thought I'd
offer what newspapers around the USA were saying about Saddam's WMD after Powell's UNSC
speech; seems a bit more germane.
The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable.
The Wall Street Journal
Piling fact upon fact, photo upon photo Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
methodically demonstrated why Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remains dangerous to his own
people, Iraq's neighbors
The Los Angeles Times
On Wednesday, America's most reluctant warrior, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell,
presented succinct and damning evidence of Saddam's enormous threat to world peace.
Arizona Republic
Saddam Hussein's illicit arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, as well as the
equally illicit means that he possesses to deliver them, poses a tangible and urgent danger
to U.S. and world security. Millions of innocent lives are at risk.
Dallas Morning News
At some point, the world chooses to believe President George W. Bush and Secretary Powell
or the international community chooses to side with Saddam Hussein and those who broadcast
his lies to the world. Powell has painstakingly presented a strong case against Iraq.
Greenville News/South Carolina
Iraq is busted. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out the case clearly. No one
hearing Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council could doubt Iraq's
actions and intentions.
Jacksonville Times-Union/Florida
The threat is real and at our door. Sept. 11, 2001, stripped away the belief that the
United States can peacefully coexist with evil. Prove it, they said. Powell has.
Charleston Daily Mail/West Virginia
We are a country always loath to fight unless provoked. The reluctance of Americans to
initiate a war needlessly does the nation credit. But this is not a needless war, nor is it
unprovoked. Powell laid out the need, and explained the provocation, in step-by-step fashion
that cannot be refuted without resorting to fantasy.
Chicago Sun-Times
The Dispatch repeatedly has called on the Bush administration to make a compelling case
that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction and hiding these
efforts from U.N. inspectors. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell made that case
before the Security Council.
Columbus Dispatch
Powell has methodically proved Iraq's failure to comply with U.N. mandates. With each
passing day, Iraq's own choices move it closer to a war that full compliance would
prevent.
Indianapolis Star
Secretary of State Colin Powell's 90-minute presentation to the U.N. Security Council,
buttressed with surveillance photographs and recorded phone conversations, should remove all
doubt that Iraq's Saddam Hussein has developed and hides weapons of mass destruction, in
violation of U.N. resolutions.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council presented not just one 'smoking gun' but a
battery of them, more than sufficient to dispel any lingering doubt about the threat the
Iraqi dictator poses.
Denver Post
The United States has made a compelling case that Iraq has failed to rid itself of weapons
of mass destruction. This failure violates the U.N. Security Council resolution of late last
year which ordered Iraq to disarm. As a consequence and it is a grave one, the Security
Council must act now to disarm Iraq by force.
Salt Lake City Tribune
Powell has connected enough dots to tie Iraq to al-Qaeda and show that this alliance is a
threat to all of Europe as well as the United States.
Manchester Union Leader
In fact, the speech provided proof that Saddam continues to refuse to obey U.N.
resolutions. Any amount of time he has now to comply fully and openly with U.N. demands
should be measured in days or a few weeks – and no longer.
"... The first, directed outward, finds its expression in the global War on Terror and in the Bush Doctrine that the United States
has the right to launch preemptive wars. This amounts to the United States seeing as illegitimate the attempt by any state to resist
its domination. ..."
"... The second dynamic, directed inward, involves the subjection of the mass of the populace to economic "rationalization", with
continual "downsizing" and "outsourcing" of jobs abroad and dismantling of what remains of the welfare state created by President Franklin
D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Neoliberalism is an integral component of inverted totalitarianism.
The state of insecurity in which this places the public serves the useful function of making people feel helpless, therefore making
it less likely they will become politically active and thus helping maintain the first dynamic. ..."
"... By using managerial methods and developing management of elections, the democracy of the United States has become sanitized
of political participation, therefore managed democracy is "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections that
they have learned to control". ..."
"... Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state because
of the opinion construction and manipulation carried out by means of technology, social science, contracts and corporate subsidies.
..."
According to Wolin, domestic and foreign affairs goals are each important and on parallel tracks,
as summarized at Wikipedia,the United
States has two main totalizing dynamics:
The first, directed outward, finds its expression in the global War on Terror and in the Bush Doctrine that the United
States has the right to launch preemptive wars. This amounts to the United States seeing as illegitimate the attempt by any
state to resist its domination.
The second dynamic, directed inward, involves the subjection of the mass of the populace to economic "rationalization",
with continual "downsizing" and "outsourcing" of jobs abroad and dismantling of what remains of the welfare state created by
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Neoliberalism is an integral component
of inverted totalitarianism. The state of insecurity in which this places the public serves the useful function of making people
feel helpless, therefore making it less likely they will become politically active and thus helping maintain the first dynamic.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Wolin's Inverted Totalitarianism provides the ground work for my suspicions regarding faux populists Obama and Trump:
By using managerial methods and developing management of elections, the democracy of the United States has become sanitized
of political participation, therefore managed democracy is "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections
that they have learned to control".
Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state
because of the opinion construction and manipulation carried out by means of technology, social science, contracts and corporate
subsidies.
Half of Americans don't bother voting for president. Why is the American media full only of people who insist that the country
is divided in half between Democrat and Republican supporters? Where are the people of influence who think it's a problem and
reflects poorly on the country that half of eligible voters don't see a reason to participate, and that it's worth changing things
in order to get more people to change their minds about that?
Both parties are content with being unpopular, but with political mechanisms ensuring they stay in power anyway. The Democrats
aren't concerned with being popular. They're content with being a token opposition party that every once in a while gets a few
token years with power they don't put to any good anyway. It pays more, I guess.
It still looks like if Americans want to live in a progressive country, they'll have to move to one. But as it is clear that the
neoliberalism of establishment Democrats has little or nothing to offer the poor and working class, or to non-wealthy millennials,
the times they are a-changing.
The Deep State is not monolithic. I would not be surprised that at the same time as Iran
Contra there were other large scale covert operations going on.
There certainly are ongoing operations that are directed at keeping actual nationalists
(like I believe Putin to be) from gaining power in important resource countries in Africa and
other continents
Llike the operation that brought down Gough Whitlam without the need for Perkin's
(Economic hitman) jackals which were probably used to kill Olof Palme.
It does appear that a portion of the Deep State was really disappointed and didn't
give up when other billionaires got Trump elected.
What makes folks think that the Bush secret cabal has gone away?
I see a splintering or bankruptcy of many elite coming as part of the new order.....cull
the herd...... If only the elite would take each other down in this event I would be
pleased.....grin
Leave the rest of us to pick up the pieces and move on with life after our global
private finance/God of Mammon world collapses.
I agree with comment #2 Richard Steven Hack that Hersh is playing his role of keeping
focus off more recent crimes against humanity by exposing the deeds of the dead but staying
tight lipped about deeds of the living.
If Hersh is now revealing secrets he couldn't while Bush was still alive, I wish he would
tell us what connection there was between Bush and the JFK assassination. Unfortunately,
Hersh's disgraceful book "The Dark Side of Camelot," suggests he will not. That book
reflects thinking by Hersh's CIA and Secret Service sources that Kennedy was such a bad
person and president that it's a good thing he was killed. The book never explicitly says
this, but it's the underlying thought.
Hersh seems to be engaged in a bit of revisionism to whitewash Bush's role on
Iran-Contra. Probably he has been strong armed, like so many others today
President Bush decapitated the Iran-Contra investigation by pardoning 6 figures including
Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, whose trial was about to begin, with Bush himself
likely called to testify. ." Bush first consulted his attorney general at the time, William
Barr. Barr has just been named by Trump as attorney general.
Interesting article on Barr here (i broke the link with space). The swamp just keeps
getting nastier
Bush was basically the acting President during the Reagan years like Cheney was during his
sons regime. Cheney and Bush go way back. Bush like Cheney knew everything going on.
"On May 14, 1982, Vice President Bush's position as chief of all U.S. covert action was
formalized in a secret memorandum (signed "for the President" by Ronald Reagan's National
Security Adviser William P. Clark and declassified during the congressional Iran-Contra
hearings)."
Gee, what a surprise, GHW Bush committing ongoing acts of treason, first as DCI then,
Veep, then POTUS. Yet another bit of evidence backing my hypothesis that the CIA quickly
gained control of the Executive branch of the Federal government soon after its
inception.
It would be tempting to call it the Mafiosi States of America except that so few Italians
or Sicilians are involved.
Saker's Anglo-Zionist Empire is quite close to reality, although I prefer my own Outlaw US
Empire.
What I was trained to portray the USA as to students is a massive lie, some of which I
knew at the time, but not to the extent I now know. Frankly, I'm rather glad my elders have
all passed--to be told you've been living a lie your entire life is an affront to one's
dignity that's hard to top.
"... By Thomas Neuberger. Originally published at DownWithTyranny! ..."
"... I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. -- William Arkin, former NBC war reporter ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan the latest superspook," they said, "to be reborn as a TV newsie . He just cashed in at NBC News as a 'senior national security and intelligence analyst' and served his first expert views on Meet the Press . The Brennan acquisition seeks to elevate NBC to spook parity with CNN , which employs former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director Michael Hayden in a similar capacity. ..."
"... Other, lesser-known national security veterans thrive under TV's grow lights. Almost too numerous to list, they include Chuck Rosenberg, former acting DEA administrator, chief of staff for FBI Director James Comey, and counselor to former FBI Director Robert Mueller; Frank Figliuzzi, former chief of FBI counterintelligence; Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser under Bush, at NBC ; and Fran Townsend, homeland security adviser under Bush. ..."
"... At this point Arkin is selling the idea, with which I agree, that the security state has become so powerful that it's able to use the news networks, who compete for "spook parity," as their sales platforms. ..."
"... And there's no real evidence that the FBI is either -- is that competent of an institution, to begin with, in terms of even pursuing the prosecutions that it's pursuing. But yet we lionize them. We hold them up on a pedestal, that somehow they are the truth tellers , that they're the ones who are getting to the bottom of things, when there's just no evidence that that's the case. ..."
"... And we tend, again, to say "Donald Trump's Homeland Security Department." Donald Trump couldn't find the Department of Homeland Security if somebody set him on the streets of New York -- of Washington, D.C. So it's not Donald Trump's Homeland Security Department. It's our Homeland Security Department. And I think it's important for us to recognize that this is a department that is really operating on its own behalf and out of control . ..."
"... if a President Sanders attempted to do all that, what would be the response of the national security apparatus, guardians of the status quo? Whom would they serve, the billionaire owners of the established, corrupt-but-lucrative bipartisan state, or the Sanders-led revolutionary FDR-style government they're constitutionally sworn to defend? ..."
"... The Guard had the power to "make or break emperors." Are we growing our own Praetorian Guard, or giving them leave to grow, under cover of their anti-Trump "resistance"? If I were one of the national security superspooks, I'd want nothing better than to be welcomed -- and washed clean -- by acceptance into that well-praised effort. Doors would open publicly that before were open only in secret. ..."
"... the form of government he leaves behind may be worse, especially if he cements in the public mind the rightness of superspooks acting as new-minted kingmakers. Sanders supporters, take note. ..."
The Praetorian Guard declares a cowering Claudius emperor after murdering Caligula (from
a painting by Lawrence Alma-Tadema)
I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed
a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and
practically impervious to criticism.
-- William Arkin, former NBC war reporter
File this under "Praetorian Guard Watch."
William Arkin is a longtime NBC reporter, primarily covering war and national security news.
He recently quit NBC, offering his reasons in an online " departure
letter ." There he castigated the media's coverage of the president, calling them at one
point "prisoners of Donald Trump."
"Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor," Arkin wrote. "And yet I'm alarmed at
how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell
more conflict and more war. Really? We shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold
move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we should be concerned
about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really
earn for the Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this
historically destructive institution?"
Please notice the last sentences above, about the growth in reputation -- and
irreproachability -- of the national security state: "And don't even get me started with the
FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?"
Then he gave an interview
to Democracy Now 's Amy Goodman. Part of that interview went this way (emphasis mine
throughout):
AMY GOODMAN: So, you talked about the people who populate the networks as pundits,
and you've been a fierce critic of the national security state, or at least understanding who
it is who is explaining things to us.
Reading from Politico , " Former CIA Director John Brennan the latest
superspook," they said, "to be reborn as a TV newsie . He just cashed in at NBC News as a
'senior national security and intelligence analyst' and served his first expert views on
Meet the Press . The Brennan acquisition seeks to elevate NBC to spook parity with CNN
, which employs former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA
Director Michael Hayden in a similar capacity.
Other, lesser-known national security veterans thrive under TV's grow lights. Almost too
numerous to list, they include Chuck Rosenberg, former acting DEA administrator, chief of
staff for FBI Director James Comey, and counselor to former FBI Director Robert Mueller;
Frank Figliuzzi, former chief of FBI counterintelligence; Juan Zarate, deputy national
security adviser under Bush, at NBC ; and Fran Townsend, homeland security adviser under
Bush."
And it goes on and on and on. These are now the pundits. And so, when you have a situation
like President Trump announcing he will immediately withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and halve
the troops that are in Afghanistan, you have this massive attack on him that's actually
led by the permanent national security state under the guise of pundits on television
.
At this point Arkin is selling the idea, with which I agree, that the security state has
become so powerful that it's able to use the news networks, who compete for "spook parity," as
their sales platforms.
But in doing so, he's making another point as well, if not mindfully -- that the national
security state is approaching (or has approached) the status of a latter-day Praetorian Guard,
a military organization without whose approval no one can become or remain president.
He gets there in stages. First, this:
WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, I think that you've -- I mean, what you said stands for
itself, Amy. But I would add to it that I think the real crisis is that when we have a panel
discussion on television, in the mainstream press, and even in the mainstream newspapers, we
don't populate that panel with people who are in opposition. We have a single war party in
the United States, and it's the only one that is given voice.
And I think that probably because of the phenomenon of Donald Trump -- let's just be
honest about it -- really what we see on TV now is former Obama administration officials
masquerading as analysts who are nonpartisan, when in fact they are partisan .
Brennan, Clapper (he who lied to Congress but, as an approved insider, was forgiven), and a
number of other "former Obama administration officials" are not just partisan, pro-endless war
advocates "masquerading as analysts"; they are "analysts" working to delegitimize Donald Trump.
Whether not Trump is a legitimate president, that "partisan superspooks" are uncritically
accepted as part of the takedown operation should be concerning.
Arkin seems to recognize this. Later in
the interview he's asked to explain his comment about the FBI, which I noted above.
AMY GOODMAN: And, William Arkin, you also write, "don't [even] get me started with
the FBI : What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?"
WILLIAM ARKIN: Well, there's a crazy collateral damage of Donald Trump. And that is
that there are a lot of liberals in America who believe that the CIA and the FBI is going
to somehow save the country from Donald Trump .
Well, I'm sorry, I'm not a particular fan of either the CIA or the FBI . And the FBI , in
particular, has a deplorable record in American society, from Martin Luther King and the
peace movements of the 1960s all the way up through Wen Ho Lee and others who have been
persecuted by the FBI .
And there's no real evidence that the FBI is either -- is that competent of an
institution, to begin with, in terms of even pursuing the prosecutions that it's pursuing.
But yet we lionize them. We hold them up on a pedestal, that somehow they are the truth
tellers , that they're the ones who are getting to the bottom of things, when there's
just no evidence that that's the case.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you mean by the "creeping fascism of homeland security"?
WILLIAM ARKIN: You know, I was against the creation of the Homeland Security
Department in 2003, to begin with. First of all, don't like the word. "Homeland security"
sounds a little bit brown-shirty to me. But, second of all, it was created to be a
counterterrorist organization, a domestic counterterrorist organization. And all during the
Obama administration, we heard Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, saying,
"You know, we are counterterrorism." But since then, we've seen they're creeping into
cybersecurity. We've seen them creeping into election security. We've seen ICE and TSA become
the second and third largest federal law enforcement agencies in the country. And so, now
homeland security sort of has become a domestic intelligence agency with really an unclear
remit, really with broad powers that we don't fully understand .
And we tend, again, to say "Donald Trump's Homeland Security Department." Donald Trump
couldn't find the Department of Homeland Security if somebody set him on the streets of New
York -- of Washington, D.C. So it's not Donald Trump's Homeland Security Department. It's our
Homeland Security Department. And I think it's important for us to recognize that this is
a department that is really operating on its own behalf and out of control .
I'd like you to ask yourself this. If a President Bernie Sanders wanted better relations
with Russia and North Korea, and went about it in a smart, safe way; wanted to bring
manufacturing back to the U.S. by smartly but radically renegotiating our billionaire- and
corporate-friendly trade deals; wanted to radically reduce spending on the
national security apparatus , on our endless wars, and spend instead on government-provided
services like Medicare for All (which, by the way, would devastate several powerful,
well-funded industries and bipartisan donor constituencies) and for good measure, started
jailing bankers again
if a President Sanders attempted to do all that, what would be the response of the national
security apparatus, guardians of the status quo? Whom would they serve, the billionaire owners
of the established, corrupt-but-lucrative bipartisan state, or the Sanders-led revolutionary
FDR-style government they're constitutionally sworn to defend?
As a reminder :
The Praetorian Guard was an elite unit of the Imperial Roman army whose members
served as personal bodyguards to the Roman emperors. [T]he Guard became notable for its
intrigue and interference in Roman politics, to the point of overthrowing emperors and
proclaiming their successors. In 312, the Guard was disbanded by Constantine the Great [after
defeating them and their latest declared emperor at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge ].
The Guard murdered Caligula -- insane, incompetent and dangerous -- and declared Claudius
emperor, the first of its many "interferences." After Claudius was poisoned, they transferred
allegiance to Nero. It went like this for centuries (of which we have none, by the way).
The Guard had the power to "make or break emperors." Are we growing our own Praetorian
Guard, or giving them leave to grow, under cover of their anti-Trump "resistance"? If I were
one of the national security superspooks, I'd want nothing better than to be welcomed -- and
washed clean -- by acceptance into that well-praised effort. Doors would open publicly that
before were open only in secret.
In that sense, Trump may be even more dangerous than he's now considered to be. What he may
do while still with us may be frightful to consider. But the form of government he leaves
behind may be worse, especially if he cements in the public mind the rightness of superspooks
acting as new-minted kingmakers. Sanders supporters, take note.
What a bunch of fools. As Tucker Carlson aptly said
Most terrifying of all, the crew has become incompetent. They have no idea how to sail.
They're spinning the ship's wheel like they're playing roulette and cackling like mental
patients.
The boat is listing, taking on water, about to sink. They're totally unaware that any of
this is happening. As waves wash over the deck, they're awarding themselves majestic new
titles and raising their own salaries. You look on in horror, helpless and desperate. You
have nowhere to go. You're trapped on a ship of fools.
Plato imagined this scene in The Republic. He never mentions what happened to the ship. It
would be nice to know. What was written as an allegory is starting to feel like a
documentary, as generations of misrule threaten to send our country beneath the waves.
The people who did it don't seem aware of what they've done. They don't want to know, and
they don't want you to tell them. Facts threaten their fantasies. And so they continue as if
what they're doing is working, making mistakes and reaping consequences that were predictable
even to Greek philosophers thousands of years before the Internet.
They're fools. The rest of us are their passengers.
Some highlights from this thread (no names, no pack drill):
Populism is a kickback and correction to the forty years of political correctness where
the white masses of Europe and America were forbidden by the liberal establishment to be
their real selves
People are fed up with the elite consensus because of the failures of the elites.
Perhaps the reason that "populism" is thriving is that the liberal elites who ruled us
in the entire post war period became complacent out of touch with those they were meant to
represent.
there are millions of others whose voices have been ignored or silenced by the
mainstream news
We are disenfranchised by what the elites are saying because the elites control the
narrative in a way that makes sure the power will always reside with them.
The MSM has always been biased-
Why is democracy booming the article asks.
Well because the lies and bullshit of the liberal elite are there for all to see.
Take a look at what the MSM refuses to report, or what it deliberately distorts,
You can see the problem. It's like they are all reading from the same limited script which
has been handed to them. Given the freedom to express our opinions, we are regurgitating what
someone else has told us to say.
Maybe we should not be too pessimistic. The levels of opportunity for expression that the
internet and social media have given us might currently have exceeded our ability to think
critically about whatever bullshit we are being fed, but future generations may be better.
After all, it's only a small step from doubting whatever mainstream thought tells you, to
starting to wonder who is telling you to doubt those things and why and then to actually go
back and think for yourself about the issues.
So Corbyn and Trump are the same because they both have shirts. Well, color me
convinced!
Like so many of these articles -- including the long but uninformative 'long read' on the
same topic -- there is no mention of the failures of the elites.
Clinton sold us a false bill of goods. The Washington Consensus on economics would make
the country richer and, after some 'pain', would benefit the working class. Sure you wouldn't
be making cars but after some retraining you would work in tech.
This was a broken promise -- de industrialization has devastated the upper midwest. The
goods are made in China and the money goes to Bezos. People are rightly upset.
The Washington Consensus on war sold us a false bill of goods. Instead of peace through
strength we have seen a century of endless conflict. We have been caught in state of constant
killing since 2001 and we are no safer for it. Indeed the conflicts have created new enemies
and the only solution on offer is a hair of the dog solution.
People are fed up with the elite consensus because of the failures of the elites. Nowhere
are the repeated failures of the elites, the decades of broken promises mentioned in the
articles. Instead, those of us who prefer Sanders to Clinton, Corbyn to Blair are mesmerized
by emotional appeals and seduced by simplistic appeals to complex problems. And they wonder
why we don't accept their analyses . . .
TL;DR -- clickbait didn't get us here. The broken promises of the Washington consensus
did.
[Jan 16, 2019] Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions
That is why we need a Constitutional amendment to get the money OUT of politics. Make bribery illegal. THEN, we will not need
Wall Street, which doesn't serve MOST of the population of this country, and is mostly responsible for the wealth gap and lack
of opportunities for most of the population.
I'm not fooled. These are not progressives, they are corporatists, beholden to their donors. They have no courage, no interest
in serving their constituencies, but are only interested in the power and money. What our country , and the world, needs is radical
change from the profit-first point of view. I won't support either one of them.
More correctly is probably say that FBI and CIA can act as a single agency when their interests are threatened. And based on
the fact that investigation was run by FBI counterintelligence division, which is a branch of CIA (with dotted line reporting)
it was CIA (Brennan and Obama) which was at the helm. The problem with powerful intelligence agencies that very soon
the tail starts wag the dog. Which happened in the USA around 1963.
Clearly this was a soft coup, organized along color revolution schema, so well known by both State Department and CIA,
and adapted to the USA government structure. Mueller investigation was a classic move designed to paralyze and undermine the
President.
1. The president of the US was made head of the Executive Branch (EC) of the federal
government by Article 2 of the present constitution of the US. He is also Commander in Chief of
the armed forces of the federal government. As head of the EC, he is head of all the parts of
the government excepting the Congress and the Federal courts which are co-equal branches of the
federal government. The Department of Justice is just another Executive Branch Department
subordinate in all things to the president. The FBI is a federal police force and
counter-intelligence agency subordinate to the Department of Justice and DNI and therefore to
the president in all things. The FBI actually IMO has no legal right whatever to investigate
the president. He is the constitutionally elected commander of the FBI. Does one investigate
one's commander? No. The procedures for legally and constitutionally removing a president from
office for malfeasance are clear. He must be impeached by the House of Representatives for
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" and then tried by the US Senate on the charges. Conviction
results in removal from office.
2. According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants,
the FBI decided all by itself after Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by
pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians the president of the
US that they supposedly wanted. Part of the discussions among senior FBI people had to do with
whether or not the president had the legal authority to remove from office an FBI Director. Say
what? Where have these dummies been all their careers? Do they not teach anything about this at
the FBI Academy? The US Army lectures its officers at every level of schooling on the subject
of the constitutional and legal basis and limits of their authority.
3. Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's
Justice Department sought FISA Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and
members of his campaign for president. Their application for warrants were largely based on
unsubstantiated "opposition research" funded by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
The judge who approved the warrants was not informed of the nature of the evidence. These
warrants provided an authority for surveillance of the Trump campaign.
4. IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of
the Deep State were doing with the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft
coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling of the FBI and DoJ the coup
is ongoing. pl
"... With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A Fighting Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. ..."
"... Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. ..."
"... Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.' ..."
With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of
Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A Fighting Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where
she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an
outsider.
Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to
them.
Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People --
powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one
unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.'
"... I watched Greg Hunter's show on this. Very disturbing because of it's currency. This backdoor off-the-books financing of whatever they want is as she says, the introduction of free fascism in the US. ..."
"... Deep State is REAL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLTzpDFGWjI ..."
Investment advisor and former Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts says it
looks like a "global recession is coming."
Is that going to cause the debt reset we've been hearing about for years? Fitts says, " Make
no mistake about it, there is no reason for the federal government to default or monkey with
any debt because they can literally print the currency..."
" The question is how do they make sure whatever they are printing really holds any kind
of store of value. I think the reason you are seeing them reengineer the federal bureaucracy
and financial transactions infrastructure is because they want much greater and tighter
control to do whatever they do, and that includes to continue to debase the currency. They
could do this (reset) entirely by debasing the currency...
What we are watching . . . is essentially a coup. We had a financial coup, and now we are
watching a legal coup to consolidate that financial coup. I would keep my eye on the
fundamental governance structure of the U.S. The important thing is not what they do. The
important thing is who controls no matter what they do. Now, we have created a mechanism for
them to control entirely in secret and create policies entirely in secret, including around
the back of a U.S. President... It's pirating by the 'just do it' method. I said to someone
the other day, what is it about secret money for secret private armies that you don 't
understand? "
$21 trillion in "missing money" at the DOD and HUD that was discovered by Dr. Mark Skidmore
and Catherine Austin Fitts in 2017 has now become a national security issue.
The federal government is not talking or answering questions, even though the DOD recently
failed its first ever audit. Fitts says, "This is basically an open running bailout..."
"Under this structure, you can transfer assets out of the federal government into private
ownership, and nobody will know and nobody can stop it. There is no oversight whatsoever. You
can't even know who is doing it. I'm telling you they just took the United States government,
they just changed the governance model by accounting policy to a fascist government. If you
are an investor, you don't know who owns those assets, and there is no evidence that you
do...
If the law says you have to produce audited financial statements and you refuse to do so
for 20 years, and then when somebody calls you on it, you proceed to change the accounting
laws that say you can now run secret books for all the agencies and over 100 related entities
."
In closing, Fitts says, "We cannot sit around and passively depend on a guy we elected
President..."
"The President cannot fix this. We need to fix this...
This is Main Street versus Wall Street. This is honest books versus dirty books. If you
want the United States in 10 years to resemble anything what it looked like 20 years ago, you
are going to have to do it, and there is no one else who can do it. You have to first get the
intelligence to know what is happening."
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of "The Solari Report."
"If the law says you have to produce audited financial statements and you refuse to do so
for 20 years, and then when somebody calls you on it, you proceed to change the accounting
laws that say you can now run secret books for all the agencies and over 100 related entities
."
She's referring to FASB standards, but those dont sound like a Constitutional Amendment to
me.
Article i, Section 9, paragraph 7: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
Perhaps when $20+ trillion are involved, the Constitution be damned, I suppose. Or perhaps
the govt boys will claim the $20T didn't come from an appropriation but instead from their
own "industrious" activities...you know, like drug and gun running, and human trafficking
perhaps?
I watched Greg Hunter's show on this. Very disturbing because of it's currency. This
backdoor off-the-books financing of whatever they want is as she says, the introduction of
free fascism in the US.
One of the smartest women out there. Huge fan here. She almost got snuffed for blowing the
whistle at HUD (two sets of books and all). It's only recently that she's come out and said
that there's no such thing as the "money being lost". It's digital and 100% traceable.
Fitts is correct and her approach is sound. Money flows are traceable. The problem is more
complicated, though. As Enron proved and the Parmalat scandal cemented, the CRONY CUT is
fatal. The Auditors gave up fiduciary duties for FIDOCIARIES riches. They rolled over and played
dead.
They've already tried to off her. They broke her financially and she bounced back. She
made a lot of enemies but luckily she has some good friends in high places too. Watch a few
Vids about what they did to her after she blew the whistle at HUD. She's lucky to be above
ground.
Her extensive studies and reports that follow crack cocaine being dumped into various
areas the subsequent drug related violence and BS "WOD" response and then what happened to
the real estate, as in, WHO WINDS UP BUYING block after block after block of blighted
buildings is absolutely fascinating . She should have gotten more recognition for those
exhaustive studies.
There's a VERY LARGE HAND at work there...for profit.
"... However, despite the signs, Goldman Sachs assumes the indicators are wrong and that "recession risk remains fairly low, in the neighborhood of 15% over the next year." The bank has predicted that the S&P 500 will finish 2019 at 3,000, up from the current value just below 2,600. ..."
Confidence in continued economic growth has been waning. A huge majority of chief financial officers
around the world say a recession will happen by the end of 2020. Most voters think one will hit by the end
of this year.
Now the Goldman
Sachs economic research team says that the
market shows a roughly 50% chance of a recession over the next year, according to
Axios.
Goldman Sachs looked at two different measures: the yield curve slope and credit spreads.
The former refers to a graph of government bond interest rates versus the years attaining
maturity requires. In a growing economy, interest rates are higher the longer the investment
because investors have confidence in the future. A frequent sign of a recession is the
inversion of the slope, when investors are uncertain about the future, so are less willing to
bet on it.
Credit spreads compare the interest paid by government bonds, which are considered the
safest. Corporate bonds, which are riskier, of the same maturity have to offer higher interest
rates. As a recession approaches, credit spreads tend to expand, as investors are more worried
about companies defaulting on their debt.
However, despite the signs, Goldman Sachs assumes the indicators are wrong and that
"recession risk remains fairly low, in the neighborhood of 15% over the next year." The bank
has predicted that the S&P 500 will finish 2019 at 3,000, up from the current value just
below 2,600.
ABU DHABI (Reuters) - United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazrouei said on
Saturday the average oil price in 2018 was $70 a barrel.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other leading global oil producers
led by Russia agreed in December to cut their combined oil output by 1.2 million barrels per
day to balance the oil market starting from January.
"Today we look at an average year of around $70 for Brent," Mazrouei told an industry news
conference in Abu Dhabi, adding that this level would help encourage global oil investments. An
energy ministry spokesman said the minister was referring to the average oil price in 2018.
I especially like the phase "This directive was particularly surprising in the context of
Canada's free market economy" That's really deep understanding of the situation ;-) . It is so
difficult to understand that Canada as a large oil producer, needs higher oil prices and it does
not make sense from the point of market economy to pollute the environment and at the same time
lose money in the process ?
Notable quotes:
"... Alberta's oil production has been cut 8.7 percent according to the mandate set by the province's government under Rachel Notley with the objective of cutting out around 325,000 barrels per day from the Canadian market. ..."
"... So far, the government-imposed productive caps have been extremely successful. In October Canadian oil prices were so depressed that the Canadian benchmark oil Western Canadian Select (WCS) was trading at a whopping $50 per barrel less than United States benchmark oil West Texas Intermediate (WTI). now, in the wake of production cuts, the price gap between WCS and WTI has diminished by a dramatic margin to a difference of just under $13 per barrel. ..."
"... The current production caps in Canada are only intended to last through the middle of this year, at which point Canadian oil companies will be permitted to decrease their cutbacks to just 95,000 barrels per day fewer than the numbers from November 2018's production rates. ..."
In an attempt to combat a ballooning oil glut and dramatically plummeting prices, the
premier of Alberta Rachel Notley introduced an unprecedented measure at the beginning of
December when she is mandating that oil companies in her province cut production. This
directive was particularly surprising in the context of Canada's free market economy, where oil
production is rarely so directly regulated.
Canada's recent oil glut woes are not due to a lack of demand, but rather a severe lack of
pipeline infrastructure. There is plenty of demand, and more than enough supply, but no way to
get the oil flowing where it needs to go. Canada's pipelines are running at maximum capacity,
storage facilities are filled to bursting, and the pipeline bottleneck has only continued to
worsen .
Now, in an effort to alleviate the struggling industry, Alberta's oil production has been
cut 8.7 percent according to the mandate set by the province's government under Rachel Notley
with the objective of cutting out around 325,000 barrels per day from the Canadian
market.
Even before the government stepped in, some private oil companies had already self-imposed
production caps in order to combat the ever-expanding glut and bottomed-out oil prices. Cenovus
Energy, Canadian Natural Resource, Devon Energy, Athabasca Oil, and others announced
curtailments that totaled around 140,000 barrels a day and Cenovus Energy, one of Canada's
major producers, even went so far as to plead with the government to impose production caps
late last year.
So far, the government-imposed productive caps have been extremely successful. In
October Canadian oil prices were so depressed that the Canadian benchmark oil Western Canadian
Select (WCS)
was trading at a whopping $50 per barrel less than United States benchmark oil West Texas
Intermediate (WTI). now, in the wake of production cuts, the price gap between WCS and WTI has
diminished by a dramatic margin to a difference of just under $13 per barrel.
While on the surface this would seem to be a roundly glowing review of the production caps
in Alberta, production cuts are not a long-term solution for Canada's oil glut woes. The
current production caps in Canada are only intended to last through the middle of this year, at
which point Canadian oil companies will be permitted to decrease their cutbacks to just 95,000
barrels per day fewer than the numbers from November 2018's production rates. The cuts are
a just a treatment, not a cure, for oversupply in Alberta. The problem needs to be addressed at
its source--the pipelines.
Unfortunately, the pipeline shortage in Alberta has no quick and easy fix. While there are
multiple major pipeline projects underway, the two largest, the Keystone XL pipeline and the
Trans Mountain pipeline, are stalled indefinitely thanks to legal woes and seemingly endless
litigation. The Enbridge Line 3 pipeline, intended to replace one of the region's already
existing pipelines, is currently under construction and
projected to be up and running by the end of the year, but will not go a long way toward
fixing the bottleneck.
Even if the Albertan government re-evaluates the present mid-2019 expiration date for the
current stricter production cuts, extending the production caps could have enduring negative
consequences in the region's oil industry. Keeping a long-term cap on production in Alberta
would potentially discourage investment in future production as well as in the infrastructure
the local industry so sorely needs. According to some
reporting , the cuts will not be able to control the gap between Canadian and U.S. oil for
much longer anyway, just another downside to drawing out what should be a short-term solution.
The government will need to weigh the possible outcomes very carefully as the expiration date
approaches, when the and the pipeline shortage is still a long way from being solved and the
price of oil remains dangerously variable.
"... This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations. ..."
"... They are CIA assets who do what they're told. ..."
"... There is an unrecognized plague in our society called antidepressants. More than ten per cent of the people in the industrialized world take drugs which interfere with self doubt. They don't ask themselves whether an idea in their minds is true, fair or kind. They only ask if they believe it. And since the chemical they ingest prevents them from assessing the idea from all sides they always believe that if they think something it must be true. ..."
"... Other symptoms of antidepressant use include high levels of free floating anxiety (because useful anxiety is suppressed) and restlessness. ..."
"... I am still asking myself what motivated a veteran politician like Hillary Clinton to violate a cardinal rule of politics by attacking not her opponent but his supporters with the "basket of deplorable" comment in the closing days of the 2016 campaign except chemically induced madness. ..."
"... If history has recorded that the Roman Empire collapsed due to lead poisoning from the water pipes a future time may also conclude the US Empire was destroyed due to antidepressants. ..."
"... The psychology of the mass of Americans with it's self-righteousness and self-centerdness is really amazing. Just in the last seventeen years the US has invaded or otherwise attacked numerous countries and has caused millions of people to die, become miserable refugees, become orphans and all other manner of evil. ..."
"... Not least of all has been it's creation and patronage of ISIS, one of the most heinous groups in history. Yet Americans have this massive blind spot to the war criminality of all this that their country has committed against the peace of the world. Instead they're being stampeded into some irrational Russia-phobia. It's the US that's been on the march everywhere, labeling those countries that resist it's aggression as being aggressors for being willing to defend themselves. It's all upside-down. ..."
"... "I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics." ..."
"... I'd really like to know who wrote that line for the Prez. (Since I think it unlikely that he wrote that, or any of his "prepared remarks".) Stephen Miller? Whoever. But it was a genius comment. ..."
"... "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" obviously the Gods want to destroy the so called western man ..."
Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how
false all that is. And, yet, here we are.
The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online
can't, for SOME reason, figure all that out.
Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever. Maybe it's time to start passing a bit
of blame to people in general. Not holding my breath.
I fully agree with this sentiment. The only reason the evil bastards who control our
society can get away with their treachery is because most of the American people are out to
lunch on the most important issues of our time. If the sheeple were to take responsibility to
inform themselves of what is happening today they would be able to see the lies they are
being constantly exposed to as just that -- lies. And then, they could put down the beer and
turn off the damn sports channel and get angry at what has happened to their country.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for ignorant people to remain
ignorant.
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European
elite which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or
corgis in the American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation"
associations.
There is an unrecognized plague in our society called antidepressants. More than ten per
cent of the people in the industrialized world take drugs which interfere with self doubt.
They don't ask themselves whether an idea in their minds is true, fair or kind. They only ask
if they believe it. And since the chemical they ingest prevents them from assessing the idea
from all sides they always believe that if they think something it must be true.
This is the perfect environment for the virus of groupthink to spread.
And since our leaders, both on the left and the right, may be ahead of the curve on drug
usage the neocons and the politically correct may use antidepressants at greater levels than
10 per cent.
Other symptoms of antidepressant use include high levels of free floating anxiety
(because useful anxiety is suppressed) and restlessness.
I am still asking myself what motivated a veteran politician like Hillary Clinton to
violate a cardinal rule of politics by attacking not her opponent but his supporters with the
"basket of deplorable" comment in the closing days of the 2016 campaign except chemically
induced madness.
If history has recorded that the Roman Empire collapsed due to lead poisoning from the
water pipes a future time may also conclude the US Empire was destroyed due to
antidepressants.
@Gordon
Pratt I think you are mistaken trying to rationalize the behavior of the political class
and their puppet masters. I believe the real driver are not antidepressants, but an obscene
greed, which is so blinding that it made MIC profiteers forget that to enjoy the fruits of
their thievery they have to be alive.
The psychology of the mass of Americans with it's self-righteousness and self-centerdness
is really amazing. Just in the last seventeen years the US has invaded or otherwise attacked
numerous countries and has caused millions of people to die, become miserable refugees,
become orphans and all other manner of evil.
Not least of all has been it's creation and patronage of ISIS, one of the most heinous
groups in history. Yet Americans have this massive blind spot to the war criminality of all
this that their country has committed against the peace of the world. Instead they're being
stampeded into some irrational Russia-phobia. It's the US that's been on the march
everywhere, labeling those countries that resist it's aggression as being aggressors for
being willing to defend themselves. It's all upside-down.
"I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in
pursuit of politics."
I'd really like to know who wrote that line for the Prez. (Since I think it unlikely
that he wrote that, or any of his "prepared remarks".) Stephen Miller? Whoever. But it was a
genius comment.
TDS is a convenient shorthand for this form of disconnect from reality. That said it is
absolutely fascinating to see and puzzle over this geopolitical tectonic event. The old
narrative is crumbling, with the result that people like Lauri are fighting desperately to
preserve their "sanity", dependent as it is on their tribal submission to the old order and
its old narrative (its timeworn lies).
"Science advances one funeral at a time."
Max Planck
By which he means that people persist in believing in those "truths" (their belief system)
they have held for a lifetime. Only when they die out will a new, revised belief system
replaced the old. The same in geopolitics as in science.
American dementia is not new. It is current but after the false flags of almost all of our
(US) wars going back as far as the Barbary Pirates, Americans have thrived on being the good
guys in an evil world. We are SO GOOD, and the world thinks we are perfect and want to be
part of US so much, that any other thought is treasonous.
The fact that getting along with Russia is necessary to NOT create armageddon, is
irrelevant to the typical citizen because no matter how wrong, we are blessed and perfect in
the eyes of the gawd we pretend to believe in.
(Bloomberg) -- Jeffrey Gundlach said yet again that the U.S. economy is gorging on debt.
Echoing many of the themes from his annual "Just Markets" webcast on Tuesday, Gundlach took
part in a round-table of 10 of Wall Street's smartest investors for Barron's. He highlighted
the dangers especially posed by the U.S. corporate bond market.
Prolific sales of junk bonds and significant growth in investment grade corporate debt,
coupled with the Federal Reserve weaning the market off quantitative easing, have resulted in
what the DoubleLine Capital LP boss called "an ocean of debt."
The investment manager countered President Donald Trump's claim that he's presiding over the
strongest economy ever. The growth is debt-based, he said.
Gundlach's forecast for real GDP expansion this year is just 0.5 percent. Citing numbers
spinning out of the USDebtClock.org website, he pointed out that the U.S.'s unfunded
liabilities are $122 trillion -- or six times GDP.
"I'm not looking for a terrible economy, but an artificially strong one, due to stimulus
spending," Gundlach told the panel. "We have floated incremental debt when we should be doing
the opposite if the economy is so strong."
Stock Bear
Gundlach is coming off another year in which his Total Return Bond Fund outperformed its
fixed-income peers. It returned 1.8 percent in 2018, the best performance among the 10 largest
actively managed U.S. bond funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Gundlach expects further declines in the U.S. stock market, which recently have steadied
after reeling for most of December since the Great Depression. Equities will be weak early in
the year and strengthen later in 2019, effectively a reversal of what happened last year, he
said.
"So now we are in a bear market, which isn't defined by me as stocks being down 20 percent.
A bear market is determined by the way stocks are acting," he said.
Rupal Bhansali, chief investment officer of International & Global Equities at Ariel
Investments, picked up on Gundlach's debt theme in the Barron's cover story. Citing General
Electric's woes, she urged investors to focus more on balance-sheet risk rather than whether a
company could beat or miss earnings. Companies with net cash are worth looking at, she
said.
Any unbiased observer would suspect that considerable part of US Congress consists of senile
gerantocrats...
Notable quotes:
"... You can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery you have to be alive. ..."
"... They tricked us the last time, I hope that the people have learned their lesson – not to trust them anymore. ..."
"... Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous financial resources and access to the entire legacy media ..."
"... Let's stop using the word "elites". That sounds too positive, as though they have some admirable traits acquired by hard work, as in "elite athletes". Instead, let's call them "oligarchs" so that we get the right nuances of wealth and power, and get the correct emotional connotations of our disgust with them. We should label them with labels that they will dislike: oligarchs, mob bosses, etc. ..."
"... This is not irrational. The screaming, the hysteria, this is the utterly rational, breathtakingly brutal reaction of a ruling elite that has the moral sense of a reptile. And it's working. All of Trump's campaign promises to stop wasting trillions on pointless winless foreign wars of choice, and instead spend that on our own country? Gone. And so much else besides. ..."
"... It's dangerous to underestimate an enemy. The useful idiot foot soldiers, screaming in mindless herd instinct, are one thing. The people behind them – the Koch brothers, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, others – there is nothing at all mindless or demented about them. ..."
Where to begin to analyze the madness of mainstream media in reaction to the Trump-Putin
meeting in Helsinki? By focusing on the individual, psychology has neglected the problem of
mass insanity, which has now overwhelmed the United States establishment, its mass media and
most of its copycat European subsidiaries. The individuals may be sane, but as a herd they are
ready to leap off the cliff.
For the past two years, a particular power group has sought to explain away its loss of
power – or rather, its loss of the Presidency, as it still holds a predominance of
institutional power – by creation of a myth. Mainstream media is known for its herd
behavior, and in this case the editors, commentators, journalists have talked themselves into a
story that initially they themselves could hardly take seriously.
Donald Trump was elected by Russia ?
On the face of it, this is preposterous. Okay, the United States can manage to rig elections
in Honduras, or Serbia, or even Ukraine, but the United States is a bit too big and complex to
leave the choice of the Presidency to a barrage of electronic messages totally unread by most
voters. If this were so, Russia wouldn't need to try to "undermine our democracy". It would
mean that our democracy was already undermined, in tatters, dead. A standing corpse ready to be
knocked over by a tweet.
Even if, as is alleged without evidence, an army of Russian bots (even bigger than the
notorious Israeli army of bots) was besieging social media with its nefarious slanders against
poor innocent Hillary Clinton, this could determine an election only in a vacuum, with no other
influences in the field. But there was a lot of other stuff going on in the 2016 election, some
for Trump and some for Hillary, and Hillary herself scored a crucial own goal by denigrating
millions of Americans as "deplorables" because they didn't fit into her identity politics
constituencies.
The Russians could do nothing to build support for Trump, and there is not a hint of
evidence that they tried. They might have done something to harm Hillary, because there was so
much there: the private server emails, the Clinton foundation, the murder of Moammer Gaddafi,
the call for a no-fly zone in Syria they didn't have to invent it. It was there. So was the
hanky panky at the Democratic National Committee, on which the Clintonite accusations focus,
perhaps to cause everyone to forget much worse things.
When you come to think of it, the DNC scandal focused on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not on
Hillary herself. Screaming about "Russian hacking the DNC" has been a distraction from much
more serious accusations against Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders supporters didn't need those
"revelations" to make them stop loving Hillary or even to discover that the DNC was working
against Bernie. It was always perfectly obvious.
So at worst, "the Russians" are accused of revealing some relatively minor facts concerning
the Hillary Clinton campaign. Big deal.
But that is enough, after two years of fakery, to send the establishment into a frenzy of
accusations of "treason" when Trump does what he said he would do while campaigning, try to
normalize relations with Russia.
This screaming comes not only from the US mainstream, but also from that European elite
which has been housebroken for seventy years as obedient poodles, dachshunds or corgis in the
American menagerie, via intense vetting by US trans-Atlantic "cooperation" associations. They
have based their careers on the illusion of sharing the world empire by following U.S. whims in
the Middle East and transforming the mission of their armed forces from defense into foreign
intervention units of NATO under U.S. command. Having not thought seriously about the
implications of this for over half a century, they panic at the suggestion of being left to
themselves.
The Western elite is now suffering from self-inflicted dementia.
Donald Trump is not particularly articulate, navigating through the language with a small
repetitive vocabulary, but what he said at his Helsinki press conference was honest and even
brave. As the hounds bay for his blood, he quite correctly refused to endorse the "findings" of
US intelligence agencies, fourteen years after the same agencies "found" that Iraq was bursting
with weapons of mass destruction. How in the world could anyone expect anything else?
But for the mainstream media, "the story" at the Helsinki summit, even the only
story, was Trump's reaction to the, er, trumped up charges of Russian interference in our
democracy. Were you or were you not elected thanks to Russian hackers? All they wanted was a
yes or no answer. Which could not possibly be yes. So they could write their reports in
advance.
Anyone who has frequented mainstream journalists, especially those who cover the "big
stories" on international affairs, is aware of their obligatory conformism, with few
exceptions. To get the job, one must have important "sources", meaning government spokesmen who
are willing to tell you what "the story" is, often without being identified. Once they know
what "the story" is, competition sets in: competition as to how to tell it. That leads to an
escalation of rhetoric, variations on the theme: "The President has betrayed our great country
to the Russian enemy. Treason!"
This demented chorus on "Russian hacking" prevented mainstream media from even doing their
job. Not even mentioning, much less analyzing, any of the real issues at the summit. To find
analysis, one must go on line, away from the official fake news to independent reporting. For
example, "the Moon of Alabama" site offers
an intelligent interpretation of the Trump strategy , which sounds infinitely more
plausible than "the story". In short, Trump is trying to woo Russia away from China, in a
reverse version of Kissinger's strategy forty years ago to woo China away from Russia, thus
avoiding a continental alliance against the United States. This may not work because the United
States has proven so untrustworthy that the cautious Russians are highly unlikely to abandon
their alliance with China for shadows. But it makes perfect sense as an explanation of Trump's
policy, unlike the caterwauling we've been hearing from Senators and talking heads on CNN.
Those people seem to have no idea of what diplomacy is about. They cannot conceive of
agreements that would be beneficial to both sides. No, it's got to be a zero sum game, winner
take all. If they win, we lose, and vice versa.
They also have no idea of the harm to both sides if they do not agree. They have no project,
no strategy. Just hate Trump.
He seems totally isolated, and every morning I look at the news to see if he has been
assassinated yet.
It is unimaginable for our Manichean moralists that Putin might also be under fire at home
for failing to chide the American president for U.S. violations of human rights in Guantanamo,
murderous drone strikes against defenseless citizens throughout the Middle East, the
destruction of Libya in violation of the UN mandate, interference in the elections of countless
countries by government-financed "non-governmental organizations" (the National Endowment of
Democracy), worldwide electronic spying, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the
world's greatest prison population and regular massacres of school children. But the diplomatic
Russians know how to be polite.
Still, if Trump actually makes a "deal", there may be losers – neither the U.S. nor
Russia but third parties. When two great powers reach agreement, it is often at somebody else's
expense. The West Europeans are afraid it will be them, but such fears are groundless. All
Putin wants is normal relations with the West, which is not much to ask.
Rather, candidate number one for paying the price are the Palestinians, or even Iran, in
marginal ways. At the press conference, asked about possible areas of cooperation between the
two nuclear powers, Trump suggested that the two could agree on helping Israel:
"We both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. They would like to do certain things with respect to
Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. In that respect, we absolutely would like to
work in order to help Israel. Israel will be working with us. So both countries would work
jointly."
In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the influence
of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising influence of
Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he does not have
much choice.
On another subject, Trump said that "our militaries" get along with the Russians "better
than our politicians". This is another daring bet, on military realism that could somehow
neutralize military industrial congressional complex lobbying for more and more weapons.
In short, the only chance to end the nuclear war threat may depend on support for Trump from
Israel and the Pentagon!
The hysterical neoliberal globalists seem to have ruled out any other possibility –
and perhaps this one too.
"Constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia forwards the opportunity to open
new pathways toward peace and stability in our world" Trump declared "I would rather take a
political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics."
That is more than his political enemies can claim.
This is a frightening, accurate commentary on what we face as a result of an unaccountable
power structure resorting to any and all means to retain power which, if this structure
continues to exercise it, will lead to our extinction.
In the establishment, it's not dementia as such, it's just serving the highest bidder. You
can accuse only the elites of dementia: they forgot that to enjoy the fruits of your thievery
you have to be alive. If only they die, it would be a great service to the humanity.
Unfortunately, the way things go, they might take us all with them.
This mass hysteria over a country hostile to both democracy and gay rights (it's hard to tell
which one is worse) has been seen in the west before.
It's very reminiscent of the lead-up to Iraq war in 2003. I mean what's next? Are they
gonna accuse Russia of having WMD's too?
They are pretty good at providing false evidence of WMD's, I wouldn't be surprised if they
stage another presentation of evidence of Russian WMD's at UN, complete with satellite images
of mobile trucks equipped with Uranium enrichment technology and all that.
That Nikki Halley can be quite persuasive, you know. I just hope that the world doesn't
buy that BS again. Russia having WMD's? That's preposterous. They tricked us the last time, I
hope that the people have learned their lesson – not to trust them anymore.
Thank you, this is an excellent summary of the situation right now. It's worth noting too
just how disconnected the establishment is from the wider public. They have enormous
financial resources and access to the entire legacy media but seem to have almost no real
base of support. Remember how the Never Trumpers had no one more prominent and well-known
than Evan McMullan (!!) to run as their candidate? Note too the tiny number of views the
YouTube videos of the Aspen Institute get: https://www.youtube.com/user/AspenInstitute/videos
.
On its own, these things aren't conclusive proof but together they add up. The Aspen
Institute crowd is an almost entirely self-contained subculture. They seem to have no base of
support, beyond their stacks of money, job titles and the power that come with the various
offices they hold. That's probably why they can never stop calling their opponents
"populists" or why Bill Kristol keeps tweeting about encountering scrappy shoeshine boys who
shout "give Trump hell, Mr Kristol!" as he goes about his urban peregrinations.
Diana Johnstone is not alone. Others on the alt-Left are starting to wake up, too. This is
Joaquín Flores:
People are seeing through dishonesty, and the old language traps are used up and done
for. If reconquista is the goal, then we need to have an honest conversation about that. If
there's a Latino nation with self determination in the south-west US, or rights 'back' to
the south-west US, then let's speak of it in such terms. Because then we'd be looking at a
Euro-American nation also. Now of course there's issues of interpenetrated peoples, and
identities we carry in our minds in diverse urban centers. But the point here is that we
have to have an honest discourse, and stop hiding reconquista sentiments under the rubric
of 'human rights'. Because European-Americans don't have right of return to Europe, so the
left is promoting what will ultimately be a race war, full scale, if they don't chill the
fuck out and back off this disingenuous approach to policy-wonkism on immigration.
The paradigmatic question today is, how is wealth made, and where does wealth come from?
What is the balance of trade and debts, and how is that is no longer manageable? The US
empire and NATO is no longer manageable. Trump is unwinding NATO. That can't be a bad
thing.
@AnonFromTNLet's stop using the word "elites". That sounds too positive, as though they have some
admirable traits acquired by hard work, as in "elite athletes". Instead, let's call them
"oligarchs" so that we get the right nuances of wealth and power, and get the correct
emotional connotations of our disgust with them. We should label them with labels that they
will dislike: oligarchs, mob bosses, etc.
@Tulips
You are right, of course, the word "elites" has too many positive connotations. In fact, they
are oligarchs, mega-thieves, or something on those lines. Functionally, in our society they
are puppet masters of all the venal puppets (politicians, journos, etc.).
I hear you, and I sympathize, but this is not mass dementia.
The oligarchy that runs the United States was worried that Donald Trump might actually
(!!) take some consideration for the national interest of the people of the United States of
America. That will never do.
This is not irrational. The screaming, the hysteria, this is the utterly rational,
breathtakingly brutal reaction of a ruling elite that has the moral sense of a reptile. And
it's working. All of Trump's campaign promises to stop wasting trillions on pointless winless
foreign wars of choice, and instead spend that on our own country? Gone. And so much else
besides.
It's dangerous to underestimate an enemy. The useful idiot foot soldiers, screaming in
mindless herd instinct, are one thing. The people behind them – the Koch brothers, Jeff
Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, others – there is nothing at all mindless or demented about
them.
Having a title "Mass Dementia in the Western Establishment" and approaching this effort as
"mass insanity", "demented chorus" etc. is simply delusional.
They know exactly what they are doing and, it appears, they are doing it well.
The are able to create their own reality. What puzzles me a bit isn't "them" or their servants (media etc.).
It's people in general. They appear to be buying that manufactured reality with ease. In this
era of instant communications it's .sobering. This constant shitting on "them" and their servants is fine and dandy but feels as just a
feel good exercise.
Perhaps some effort could be spared in trying to analyze and explain common people approach
to all this. The buying, hook and sinker, that manufacture.
Anyone with an average intelligence can, in two hours trawling of Internet, get how false
all that is. And, yet, here we are.
The same people who can spend hours on social media, shopping and entertainment online can't,
for SOME reason, figure all that out.
Easy to blame "them" and media/academia/whatever.
Maybe it's time to start passing a bit of blame to people in general.
@Daniel
Rich The Russians are by nature cautious. They are a conglomerate of individuals, many of
whom remember times when they would be sent by communist tyrants to a gulag for Wrongthink.
Of course they're cautious.
How Hillary Clinton could even run for presidency after the murder of Moammer Gaddafi and
Libya destruction, in any decent civilisation and society.
That's planetary shame and the most important question, not DNC hack or anything else, which
just trace in wrong direction.
So, Trump should grow some balls and arrest not just her but Barack Obama as well on the
same charges, as war criminals as they are, and prove that he really deserves to be
trusted.
And sacrifice himself in the process if needed as that would do any honest true US president,
and he knew what to expect from such position from the start.
It's not TV reality show, as still it is.
All he cares about is his ego and popularity, and he is loosing both.
Israel lobby finally see that they put their money in the wrong bank.
I intend to believe more that West, namely USA and UK the most, keeps them more hostage in
uncertainty for decades than in some Jewish conspiracy. Also, I also believe that only Russia can guaranty Israel security and peace in the
region.
In political terms, Trump knows where political power lies, and is counting on the
influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which recognizes the defeat in Syria and the rising
influence of Russia, to save him from the liberal imperialists – a daring bet, but he
does not have much choice.
Saudi Arabia spent 40 billion dollars helping Saddam's Iraq in its war against Iran, the
cost of US efforts in the Syria civil war have largely been met by the Saudis. The coming
attack on Iran will be as much to please the Saudis as to lock Israel into West Bank Arab
expulsion mode. The Israel Lobby will is not pushing Donald Trump, they are playing catch up
with him. Trump has already shown with the Jerusalem recognition that he is encouraging
Israel in unilateral courses of action.
@TG
No, I agree with the assessment in this article and its title: the establishment is
dangerously detached from reality right now. Our stagnant and locked-down political culture
in the West allowed the "elite" to develop a false sense of security and and certainty. They
thought they had things pretty much figured out a few years ago but now they're genuinely
panicked.
Looking to this circus from Russia, to those insane speaches, insulting caricatures in MSM, I
understand the huge amount of rotteness of Western society, mainly its high top part, but not
only. Even here in comments (not in this particularly article) the percentage of trolls and
brainwashed idiots exceeds all I could've imagined. So I stopped writing here – no
sense, I beleive that something can change only after the dramatic changes in US/West society
and that is possible only after a big war/revolution.
So, I'm afraid our future is vague
One of the most sought-after visa programs in the U.S., the H-1B, could see some significant
changes in 2019, according
to President Trump , including a potential path to citizenship for recipients of the
non-immigrant visa.
The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to hire graduate-level workers in specialty occupations, like IT,
finance, accounting, architecture, engineering, science and medicine. Any job that requires
workers to have at least a bachelor's degree falls under the H-1B for specialty
occupations.
Each year, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) allots about 85,000 of the
H-1B visas -- 65,000 for applicants with a bachelor's degree or equivalent, and 20,000 for
those with a master's degree or higher.
As of April 2017, when Trump signed an executive order -- "Buy American and Hire American"
-- it's become more difficult for U.S. companies to hire people via H-1B. It directs the
Department of Homeland Security to only grant the visas to the "most-skilled or highest-paid
beneficiaries."
Here's a look at the American companies (and industries) that benefited the most from the
program in 2017.
Cognizant: The IT services business had a whopping 3,194 H-1B initial petitions approved in
2017, the most of any U.S. company by almost 600.
Amazon: In 2017, the e-commerce behemoth hired 2,515 employees via
the H-1B visa program, according to data compiled by the
National Foundation for American Policy . That was about a 78 percent increase from 2016,
or 1,099 more employees.
Microsoft: Microsoft hired 1,479 workers through H-1B in 2017, the second most of U.S.
companies -- an increase in 334 employees from the year prior, or close to 29 percent.
IBM: In 2017, IBM employed about 1,231 workers through the H-1B visa program.
Intel: The California-based company employed 1,230 workers through H-1B in 2017, 200 more
workers -- or a 19 percent increase -- compared to 2016.
Google: The search engine giant had 1,213 H-1B initial petitions approved for fiscal year
2017, a 31 percent increase of about 289 from 2016.
That is another surefire sign of degeneracy: when a regime can only produce incompetent,
often old, leaders who are completely out of touch with reality and who blame their own
failures on [everyone but themselves].
Another sign of degeneracy is that masses of people put their faith in such human garbage
and fantasize that the essentially effortless task of casting ballots every few years will
somehow, perhaps magically, improve their situations. Even more telling is the infantilism
demonstrated by the attitude that they're special and "da gweatist" and that the world should
cater to their every whim just like mommy and daddy did.
Unlike the Titanic, most collapsed regimes don't fully sink. They remain about half
under water, and half above, possibly with an orchestra still playing joyful music. And in
the most expensive top deck cabins, a pretty luxurious lifestyle can be maintained by the
elites.
A clever metaphor.
incompetent, often old, leaders who are completely out of touch with reality and who
blame their own failures on internal ("deplorables") and external ("the Russians")
factors.
Just so.
Dmitry Orlov's assessment rings dead true to me. The most terrifying factor is that a
doomed and demented US administration may resort to the use of its vast air and missile power
to save itself.
There is probably an optimum size of financial sector after which it easily go out of control
and start grabbing political power. So it is important to prohibit banksters to participate in
political activity of any kind or in lobbing. Lobbing by financial sector should be criminalized.
They also should be prohibited from hired any for government employee for 10 years after he/she
left this/her position in government (revolving door style of corruption).
The other interesting point is that taxes can server as powerful inhibitor of destructive
behaviour of financial sector. So the fight for the level of taxation of particular social groups
is the most important political fight in modern society.
Also some actions of banksters sho</blockquote>uld be criminalized with high duration
of jail term, just to create negative incentives for certain types of behavior. For example
selling insurance without adequate capital to cover loses. Also important is to criminalize
changing more then a minimum fees (say, 0.25% a year) in 401K accounts as well as provided
insufficiently diversified 401k portfolios.
This was a fascinating piece, very readable for those of us with minimal financial
education. However, since this is such a good explainer for the layman, I think it would be
very beneficial to explain how big a difference 1% in fees makes for an investor over a
lifetime. I know personally when I used to compare funds the difference between 1 and 2% in
fees seemed negligible. But then I saw that fantastic PBS Frontline on this topic
and saw how much that 1% could cost me over a lifetime! I now have everything that I
personally manage in index funds!
You can't really argue with what has been said, and all (of us) involved in the sector
know it is massive rip off.
While a free market advocate, I think a first step would be to introduce meaningful fee
caps on all state promoted or mandated saving arrangements (eg ISAS, and Pensions), on the
grounds that the market is skewed by the government intervention that creates the glut of
forced buyers, and so to correct that imbalance the market (i.e. consumers) need protection
through fee caps. I'd say no more than 20 – 25bps should be permitted for all ISAS and
pension savings (DC or DB). Individual wealthy investors (investments of more than say
£5m?) can pay what they like.
>>The job of the finance sector is simply to manage existing resources. It creates
nothing.
This is a dubious assertion, but you clearly believe it. How then, can you in good
conscience, charge 1.25% (plus indirect costs for the funds you hold in client portfolios) to
manage people's money when you yourself admit you are adding no value?
(source: http://strubelim.com/wp/our-funds/ar-fund/
)
There are 6000 publicly traded companies. Some of them will have rising stock prices, some
falling. If a money manager can steer you to the rising ones, he is doing something of value.
It doesn't mean he created anything physical that didn't exist before. He's doing a service
for you that would otherwise have taken you some time and effort to do, and that's what you
pay for.
Yes, it's a different definition of value. The growth of financial services has been
outpacing the growth of other sectors to a monstrous scale, and that makes this distinction
important. It signals a kind of corruption that can only mean high inflation and decoupling
money from economic output.
I don't follow. How is financial services different from any other kind of services, in
the impact on inflation? Why not also actors, barbers, or any other service profession?
The growth of the financial sector might be explained by the fact that it is the industry
most able to exploit computers, and the first to do so on a large scale.
The corruption is, I think, a separate issue that is present whenever other people's money
is involved. Financial services and government are simply more involved that way than most
other industries, and have been all along, dating to long before the recent growth.
Corruption is not impossible in any industry, just more attractive when the numbers are
larger.
Corruption is never a separate in ANY corporate activity. The TAX CODE treats the wealth
of the .01% radically different than Income from Labor, because all Taxes on Capital Gains
are deferred until taken and are not TAXED as ordinary income. The TAX CODE is responsible
for the corruption of our government because it has put real POWER, the Power of Wealth in
the hands of the .01%, to buy whatever it wants, while labor and the poor spend everything
they earn or are given , every single year to survive in a economic culture designed for the
benefit of the .01%, something no one will write about!
Change the TAX CODE and the Corruption of Society will end!
Barbers and actors being paid for their labor do not have the same impact on inflation as
a bank giving out loans and consumer credit at interest. It's not equivalent at all.
Corruption in financial industries is what this article is discussing. If it's a separate
issue, I'm confused as to the point of talking about this at all!
No, I wasn't, though I have heard that. My theory of markets, and human group behavior in
general, is a statistical approach. There are averages, distributions, and temporary
equilibriums, but the interesting parts are the outliers. I guess that is more of a quantum
flavor than Newtonian. Over time, economies behave cyclically. Much of nature and human group
behavior is cyclical.
"This argument hinges on everyone that purchases these services knowing their true
value."
In a literal sense, you are correct, it is an imperfect measure of value. However, I think
it is far and away the most reliable one we have as value is extremely subjective. I don't
think it is right or prudent for third, non cost bearing parties to preempt decisions made by
consenting adults, rather, I would accord them the dignity of free choice. There are many
things that consumers purchase that I do not understand, why anyone would pay a premium for a
fast car seems like a waste of money to me, for example. Why anyone would pay money to golf,
not to mention the huge cost in terms of time it takes to get through 18 holes, seems like a
waste of money to me. These are things that make no sense to me because I do not see the
value there. But, I recognize that people have various tastes and preferences, and I respect
that and presume that individuals know themselves and their own tastes and preferences better
than I (or someone else) does. Therefore, when someone values something that I do not
understand, I tend to believe it is a result of a difference in preference, rather than they
are too dumb to figure out what they like, or that they are "tricked" into buying something
and hence need protection delivered by those who fancy themselves as enlightened enough to
see the real truth. Nothing about this is unique to the financial industry, by the way.
"Countless services and products we rely on were funded by taxes to make them profitable.
They are "worthwhile" but apparently not "profitable" enough to invest in. Making money and
creating value aren't the same thing. Ideally, everyone decides what is worthwhile."
Apparently not enough people decided these services and products were worthwhile, so
politicians decided they were worthwhile and used the force and power of government to get
them done. Substituting preferences of politicians, spending other people's money for those
of millions of individuals spending their own money does not seem like an efficient way to
allocate resources.
"... The following is a transcript of CounterPunch Radio – Episode 19 (originally aired September 21, 2015). Eric Draitser interviews Michael Hudson. ..."
"... The Troika and IMF doctrine of austerity and privatization ..."
ED: Thanks so much for coming on. As I mentioned already, the title of your book –
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy –
is an apt metaphor. So parasitic finance capital is really what you're writing about. You
explain that it essentially survives by feeding off what we might call the real economy. Could
you draw out that analogy a little bit? What does that mean? How does finance behave like a
parasite toward the rest of the economy?
MH: Economists for the last 50 years have used the term "host economy" for a country that
lets in foreign investment. This term appears in most mainstream textbooks. A host implies a
parasite. The term parasitism has been applied to finance by Martin Luther and others, but
usually in the sense that you just talked about: simply taking something from the host.
But that's not how biological parasites work in nature. Biological parasitism is more
complex, and precisely for that reason it's a better and more sophisticated metaphor for
economics. The key is how a parasite takes over a host. It has enzymes that numb the host's
nervous system and brain. So if it stings or gets its claws into it, there's a soporific
anesthetic to block the host from realizing that it's being taken over. Then the parasite sends
enzymes into the brain. A parasite cannot take anything from the host unless it takes over the
brain.
The brain in modern economies is the government, the educational system, and the way that
governments and societies make their economic policy models of how to behave. In nature, the
parasite makes the host think that the free rider, the parasite, is its baby, part of its body,
to convince the host actually to protect the parasite over itself.
That's how the financial sector has taken over the economy. Its lobbyists and academic
advocates have persuaded governments and voters that they need to protect banks, and even need
to bail them out when they become overly predatory and face collapse. Governments and
politicians are persuaded to save banks instead of saving the economy, as if the economy can't
function without banks being left in private hands to do whatever they want, free of serious
regulation and even from prosecution when they commit fraud. This means saving creditors
– the One Percent – not the indebted 99 Percent.
It was not always this way. A century ago, two centuries ago, three centuries ago and all
the way back to the Bronze Age, almost every society has realized that the great destabilizing
force is finance – that is, debt. Debt grows exponentially, enabling creditors ultimately
to foreclose on the assets of debtors. Creditors end up reducing societies to debt bondage, as
when the Roman Empire ended in serfdom.
About a hundred years ago in America, John Bates Clark and other pro-financial ideologues
argued that finance is not external to the economy. It's not extraneous, it's part of the
economy, just like landlords are part of the economy. This means that if the financial sector
takes more revenue out of the economy as interest, fees or monopoly charges, it's because
finance is an inherent and vital part of the economy, adding to GDP, not merely siphoning it
off from producers to pay Wall Street and the One Percent. So our economic policy protects
finance as if it helps us grow, not siphons off our growth.
A year or two ago, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs said that the reason Goldman Sachs'
managers are paid more than anybody else is because they're so productive. The question is,
productive of what? The National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) say that everybody is
productive in proportion to the amount of money they make/take. It doesn't matter whether it's
extractive income or productive income. It doesn't matter whether it's by manufacturing
products or simply taking money from people, or simply by the fraud that Goldman Sachs,
Citigroup, Bank of America and others paid tens of millions of dollars in fines for committing.
Any way of earning income is considered to be as productive as any other way. This is a
parasite-friendly mentality, because it denies that there's any such thing as unearned income.
It denies that there's a free lunch. Milton Friedman got famous for promoting the idea that
there's no such thing as a free lunch, when Wall Street knows quite well that this is what the
economy is all about. It's all about how to get a free lunch, with risks picked up by the
government. No wonder they back economists who deny that there's any such thing!
ED: To get to the root of the issue, what's interesting to me about this analogy that we're
talking about is that we hear the term neoliberalism all the time. It is an ideology I that's
used to promote the environment within which this parasitic sort of finance capital can
operate. So could you talk a bit about the relationship between finance capital and
neoliberalism as its ideology.
MH: Today's vocabulary is what Orwell would call DoubleThink. If you're going to call
something anti-liberal and against what Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill and other classical
economists described as free markets, you pretend to be neoliberal. The focus of Smith, Mill,
Quesnay and the whole of 19th-century classical economics was to draw a distinction between
productive and unproductive labor – that is, between people who earn wages and profits,
and rentiers who, as Mill said, "get rich in their sleep." That is how he described landowners
receiving groundrent. It also describes the financial sector receiving interest and "capital"
gains.
The first thing the neoliberal Chicago School did when they took over Chile was to close
down every economics department in the country except the one they controlled at the Catholic
University. They started an assassination program of left wing professors, labor leaders and
politicians, and imposed neoliberalism by gunpoint. Their idea is you cannot have anti-labor,
deregulated "free markets" stripping away social protections and benefits unless you have
totalitarian control. You have to censor any idea that there's ever been an alternative, by
rewriting economic history to deny the progressive tax and regulatory reforms that Smith, Mill,
and other classical economists urged to free industrial capitalism from the surviving feudal
privileges of landlords and predatory finance.
This rewriting of the history of economic thought involves inverting the common vocabulary
that people use. So, the idea of the parasitism is to replace the meaning of everyday words and
vocabulary with their opposite. It's DoubleThink.
Democratic vs. oligarchic government and their respective economic doctrines
ED: I don't want to go too far off on a tangent, but you mentioned the example of Chile's 1973
coup and the assassination of Allende to impose the Pinochet dictatorship. That was a
Kissinger/Nixon operation as we know, but what's interesting about that is Chile was
transformed into a sort of experimental laboratory to impose the Chicago school economic model
of what we now would call neoliberalism. Later in our conversation I want to talk a bit about
some recent laboratories we have seen in Eastern Europe, and now in Southern Europe as well.
The important point about neoliberalism is the relationship between totalitarian government and
this form of economics.
MH: That's right. Neoliberals say they're against government, but what they're really
against is democratic government. The kind of governments they support are pre-referendum
Greece or post-coup Ukraine. As Germany's Wolfgang Schäuble said, "democracy doesn't
count." Neoliberals want the kind of government that will create gains for the banks, not
necessarily for se the economy at large. Such governments basically are oligarchic. Once high
finance takes over governments as a means of exploiting the 99 Percent, it's all for active
government policy – for itself.
Aristotle talked about this more than 2,000 years ago. He said that democracy is the stage
immediately proceeding oligarchy. All economies go through three stages repeating a cycle: from
democracy into oligarchy, and then the oligarchs make themselves hereditary. Today, Jeb Bush
wants to abolish the estate tax to help the emerging power elite make itself into a hereditary
aristocracy. Then, some of the aristocratic families will fight among themselves, and take the
public into their camp and promote democracy, so you have the cycle going all over again.
That's the kind of cycle we're having now, just as in ancient Athens. It's a transition from
democracy to oligarchy on its way to becoming an aristocracy of the power elite.
ED: I want to return to the book in a second but I have to interject that one particular
economist hasn't been mentioned yet: Karl Marx. It's an inversion of Marx as well, because
Marx's labor theory of value was that that value ultimately is derived from labor. Parasitic
finance capital is the opposite of that. It may increase prices without value.
MH: Correct, but I should point out that there's often a misinterpretation of the context in
which the labor theory of value was formulated and refined. The reason why Marx and the other
classical economists – William Petty, Smith, Mill and the others – talked about the
labor theory of value was to isolate that part of price that wasn't value. Their purpose was to
define economic rent as something that was not value. It was extraneous to production, and was
a free lunch – the element of price that is charged to consumers and others that has no
basis in labor, no basis in real cost, but is purely a monopoly price or return to privilege.
This was mainly a survival of the feudal epoch, above all of the landed aristocracy who were
the heirs of the military conquers, and also the financial sector of banking families and their
heirs.
The aim of the labor theory of value was to divide the economy between excessive price
gouging and labor. The objective of the classical economists was to bring prices in line with
value to prevent a free ride, to prevent monopolies, to prevent an absentee landlord class so
as to free society from the legacy of feudalism and the military conquests that carved up
Europe's land a thousand years ago and that still underlies our property relations.
The concept and theory of economic rent
ED: That's a great point, and it leads me into the next issue that I want to touch on. You've
mentioned the term already a number of times: the concept of economic rent. We all know rent in
terms of what we have to pay every month to the landlord, but we might not think about what it
means conceptually. It's one of the fabrics with which you've woven this book together. One of
the running themes, rent extraction, and its role in the development of what we've now termed
this parasitic relationship. So, explain for laymen what this means – rent extraction
– and how this concept evolved.
MH: To put the concept of economic rent in perspective, I should point out when I went to
get my PhD over a half a century ago, every university offering a graduate economics degree
taught the history of economic thought. That has now been erased from the curriculum. People
get mathematics instead, so they're unexposed to the concept of economic rent as unearned
income. It's a concept that has been turned on its head by "free market" ideologues who use
"rent seeking" mainly to characterize government bureaucrats taxing the private sector to
enhance their authority – not free lunchers seeking to untax their unearned income. Or,
neoclassical economists define rent as "imperfect competition" (as if their myth of "perfect
competition" really existed) stemming from "insufficient knowledge of the market," patents and
so forth.
Most rent theory was developed in England, and also in France. English practice is more
complex than America. The military conquers imposed a pure groundrent fee on the land, as
distinct from the building and improvements. So if you buy a house from a seller in England,
somebody else may own the land underneath it. You have to pay a separate rent for the land. The
landlord doesn't do anything at all to collect land rent, that's why they call them rentiers or
coupon clippers. In New York City, for example, Columbia University long owned the land
underneath Rockefeller Center. Finally they sold it to the Japanese, who lost their shirt. This
practice is a carry-over from the Norman Conquest and its absentee landlord class.
The word "rent" originally was French, for a government bond (rente). Owners received a
regular income every quarter or every year. A lot of bonds used to have coupons, and you would
clip off the coupon and collect your interest. It's passively earned income, that is, income
not actually earned by your own labor or enterprise. It's just a claim that society has to pay,
whether you're a government bond holder or whether you own land.
This concept of income without labor – but simply from privileges that had been made
hereditary – was extended to the ideas of monopolies like the East India Company and
other trade monopolies. They could produce or buy goods for, let's say, a dollar a unit, and
sell them for whatever the market will bear – say, $4.00. The markup is "empty pricing."
It's pure price gouging by a natural monopoly, like today's drug companies.
To prevent such price gouging and to keep economies competitive with low costs of living and
doing business, European kept the most important natural monopolies in the public domain: the
post office, the BBC and other state broadcasting companies, roads and basic transportation, as
well as early national airlines. European governments prevented monopoly rent by providing
basic infrastructure services at cost, or even at subsidized prices or freely in the case of
roads. The guiding idea is for public infrastructure – which you should think of as a
factor of production along with labor and capital – was to lower the cost of living and
doing business.
But since Margaret Thatcher led Britain down the road to debt peonage and rent serfdom by
privatizing this infrastructure, she and her emulators other countries turned them into
tollbooth economies. The resulting economic rent takes the form of a rise in prices to cover
interest, stock options, soaring executive salaries and underwriting fees. The economy ends up
being turned into a collection of tollbooths instead of factories. So, you can think of rent as
the "right" or special legal privilege to erect a tollbooth and say, "You can't get television
over your cable channel unless you pay us, and what we charge you is anything we can get from
you."
This price doesn't have any relation to what it costs to produce what they sell. Such
extortionate pricing is now sponsored by U.S. diplomacy, the World Bank, and what's called the
Washington Consensus forcing governments to privatize the public domain and create such
rent-extracting opportunities.
In Mexico, when they told it to be more "efficient" and privatize its telephone monopoly,
the government sold it to Carlos Slim, who became one of the richest people in the world by
making Mexico's phones among the highest priced in the world. The government provided an
opportunity for price gouging. Similar high-priced privatized phone systems plague the
neoliberalized post-Soviet economies. Classical economists viewed this as a kind of theft. The
French novelist Balzac wrote about this more clearly than most economists when he said that
every family fortune originates in a great theft. He added that this not only was undiscovered,
but has come taken for granted so naturally that it just doesn't matter.
If you look at the Forbes 100 or 500 lists of each nation's richest people, most made their
fortunes through insider dealing to obtain land, mineral rights or monopolies. If you look at
American history, early real estate fortunes were made by insiders bribing the British Colonial
governors. The railroad barrens bribed Congressmen and other public officials to let them
privatize the railroads and rip off the country. Frank Norris's The Octopus is a great novel
about this, and many Hollywood movies describe the kind of real estate and banking rip-offs
that made America what it is. The nation's power elite basically begun as robber barons, as
they did in England, France and other countries.
The difference, of course, is that in past centuries this was viewed as corrupt and a crime.
Today, neoliberal economists recommend it as the way to raise "productivity" and make countries
wealthier, as if it were not the road to neofeudal serfdom.
The Austrian School vs. government regulation and pro-labor policies
ED: I don't want to go too far off on a tangent because we have a lot to cover specific to your
book. But I heard an interesting story when I was doing a bit of my own research throughout the
years about the evolution of economic thought, and specifically the origins of the so-called
Austrian School of Economics – people like von Mises and von Hayek. In the early 20th
century they were essentially, as far as I could tell, creating an ideological framework in
which they could make theoretical arguments to justify exorbitant rent and make it seem almost
like a product of natural law – something akin to a phenomenon of nature.
MH: The key to the Austrian School is their hatred of labor and socialism. It saw the danger
of democratic government spreading to the Habsburg Empire, and it said, "The one thing we have
to stop is democracy. Their idea of a free market was one free of democracy and of democratic
government regulating and taxing wealthy rentiers. It was a short step to fighting in the
streets, using murder as a "persuader" for the particular kind of "free markets" they wanted
– a privatized Thatcherite deregulated kind. To the rentiers they said: "It's either our
freedom or that of labor."
Kari Polanyi-Levitt has recently written about how her father, Karl Polanyi, was confronted
with these right-wing Viennese. His doctrine was designed to rescue economics from this school,
which makes up a fake history of how economics and civilization originated.
One of the first Austrian's was Carl Menger in the 1870s. His "individualistic" theory about
the origins of money – without any role played by temples, palaces or other public
institutions – still governs Austrian economics. Just as Margaret Thatcher said, "There's
no such thing as society," the Austrians developed a picture of the economy without any
positive role for government. It was as if money were created by producers and merchants
bartering their output. This is a travesty of history. All ancient money was issued by temples
or public mints so as to guarantee standards of purity and weight. You can read Biblical and
Babylonian denunciation of merchants using false weights and measures so see why money had to
be public. The major trading areas were agora spaces in front of temples, which kept the
official weights and measures. And much exchange was between the community's families and the
public institutions.
Most important, money was brought into being not for trade (which was conducted mainly on
credit), but for paying debts. And most debts were owed to the temples and palaces for pubic
services or tribute. But to the Austrians, the idea was that anything the government does to
protect labor, consumers and society from rentiers and grabbers is deadweight overhead.
Above all, they opposed governments creating their own money, e.g. as the United States did
with its greenbacks in the Civil War. They wanted to privatize money creation in the hands of
commercial banks, so that they could receive interest on their privilege of credit creation and
also to determine the allocation of resources.
Today's neoliberals follow this Austrian tradition of viewing government as a burden,
instead of producing infrastructure free of rent extraction. As we just said in the previous
discussion, the greatest fortunes of our time have come from privatizing the public domain.
Obviously the government isn't just deadweight. But it is becoming prey to the financial
interests and the smashers and grabbers they have chosen to back.
ED: You're right, I agree 100%. You encounter this ideology even in the political
sociological realm like Joseph Schumpeter, or through the quasi-economic realm like von Hayek
in The Road to Serfdom.
MH: Its policy conclusion actually advocates neo-serfdom. Real serfdom was when families had
to pay all their income to the landlords as rent. Centuries of classical economists backed
democratic political reform of parliaments to roll back the landlords' power (and that of
bankers). But Hayek claimed that this rollback was the road to serfdom, not away from it. He
said democratic regulation and taxation of rentiers is serfdom. In reality, of course, it's the
antidote.
ED: It's the inversion you were talking about earlier. We're going to go into a break here
in a minute but before we do I want to touch on one other point that is important in the book,
again the book, Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroyed the Global
Economy, available from CounterPunch – very important that people pick up this book.
MH: And from Amazon! You can get a hard copy for those who don't want to read on
computers.
Finance as the new mode of warfare
ED: Yes, and on amazon as well, thank you. This issue that I want to touch on before we go to
the break is debt. On this program a couple of months ago I had the journalist John Pilger. He
and I touched on debt specifically as a weapon, and how it is used as a weapon. You can see
this in the form of debt enslavement, if you want to call it that, in postcolonial Africa. You
see the same thing in Latin America where, Michael, I know you have a lot of experience in
Latin America in the last couple of decades. So let's talk a little bit, if we could, before we
go to the break, about debt as a weapon, because I think this is an important concept for
understanding what's happening now in Greece, and is really the framework through which we have
to understand what we would call 21st-century austerity.
MH: If you treat debt as a weapon, the basic idea is that finance is the new mode of
warfare. That's one of my chapters in the book. In the past, in order to take over a country's
land and its public domain, its basic infrastructure and its mineral resources, you had to have
a military invasion. But that's very expensive. And politically, almost no modern democracy can
afford a military invasion anymore.
So the objectives of the financial sector – of Wall Street, the City of London or
Frankfurt in Germany – is to obtain the land. You can look at what's happening in Greece.
What its creditors, the IMF and European Central Bank (ECB) want are the Greek islands, and
they want the gas rights in the Aegean Sea. They want whatever buildings and property there is,
including the museums.
Matters are not so much different in the private sector. If you can get a company or
individual into debt, you can strip away the assets they have when they can't pay. A
Hayek-style government would block society from protecting itself against such asset stripping.
Defending "property rights" of creditors, such "free market" ideology deprives the rest of the
economy – businesses, individuals and public agencies. It treats debt writedowns as the
road to serfdom, not the road away from debt dependency.
In antiquity, private individuals obtained labor services by making loans to families in
need, and obliging their servant girls, children or even wives to work off the loan in the form
of labor service. My Harvard-based archaeological group has published a series of five books
that I co-edited, most recently Labor in the
Ancient World . Creditors (often palace infrastructure managers or collectors) would get
people into bondage. When new Bronze Age rulers started their first full year on the throne, it
was customary to declare an amnesty to free bond servants and return them to their families,
and annul personal debts as well as to return whatever lands were forfeited. So in the Bronze
Age, debt serfdom and debt bondage was only temporary. The biblical Jubilee law was a literal
translation of Babylonian practice that went back two thousand years.
In America, in colonial times, sharpies (especially from Britain) would lend farmers money
that they knew the farmer couldn't pay, then they would foreclose just before the crops came
in. Right now you have corporate raiders, who are raiding whole companies by forcing them into
debt, and then smashing and grabbing. You now have the IMF, European Central Bank and
Washington Consensus taking over whole countries like Ukraine. The tactic is to purposely lend
them the money that clearly cannot be repaid, and say, "Oh you cannot pay? Well, we're not
going to take a loss. We have a solution." The solution is to sell off public enterprises, land
and natural resources. In Greece's case, 50 billion euros of its property, everything that it
has in the public sector. The country is to be sold off to foreigners (including domestic
oligarchs working out of their offshore accounts). Debt leverage is thus the way to achieve
what it took armies to win in times past.
ED: Exactly. One last point on that as well. I want to get your comment on and we see this
in post-colonial Africa, especially when the French and the British had to nominally give up
control of their colonies. You saw debt become an important tool to maintain hegemony within
their spheres of influence. Of course, asset stripping and seizing control, smashing and
grabbing was part of that. But also it is the debt servicing payments, it is the cycle of debt
repayment and taking new loans on top of original loans to service the original loans –
this process this cycle is also really an example of this debt servitude or debt bondage.
MH: That's correct, and mainstream economics denies any of this. It began with Ricardo,
who's brothers were major bankers at the time, and he himself was the major bank lobbyist in
England. Right after Greece won its independence from Turkey, the Ricardo brothers made a
rack-renting loan to Greece at far below par (that is, below the face value that Greece
committed itself to pay). Greece tried to pay over the next century, but the terms of the loan
ended up stripping and keeping it on the edge of bankruptcy well into the 20th century.
But Ricardo testified before Parliament that there could be no debt-servicing problem. Any
country, he said, could repay the debts automatically, because there is an automatic
stabilization mechanism that enables every country to be able to pay. This is the theory that
underlines Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of monetarism: the misleading idea that debt
cannot be a problem.
That's what's taught now in international trade and financial textbooks. It's false
pleading. It draws a fictitious "What If" picture of the world. When criticized, the authors of
these textbooks, like Paul Samuelson, say that it doesn't matter whether economic theory is
realistic or not. The judgment of whether an economic theory is scientific is simply whether it
is internally consistent. So you have these fictitious economists given Nobel Prizes for
promoting an inside out, upside down version of how the global economy actually works.
ED: One other thing that they no longer teach is what used to be called political economy.
The influence of the Chicago School, neoliberalism and monetarism has removed classical
political economy from academia, from the Canon if you will. Instead, as you said, it's all
about mathematics and formulas that treat economics like a natural science, when in fact it
really should be more of a historically grounded social science.
MH: The formulas that they teach don't have government in them,. If you have a theory that
everything is just an exchange, a trade, and that there isn't any government, then you have a
theory that has nothing to do with the real world. And if you assume that the environment
remains constant instead of using economics to guide public and national policy, you're using
economics for the opposite of what the classical economists did. Adam Smith, Mill, Marx, Veblen
– they all developed their economic theory to reform the world. The classical economists
were reformers. They wanted to free society from the legacy of feudalism – to get rid of
land rent, to take money creation and credit creation into the public domain. Whatever their
views, whether they were right wingers or left wingers, whether they were Christian socialists,
Ricardian socialists or Marxian socialists, all the capitalist theorists of the 19th century
called themselves socialists, because they saw capitalism as evolving into socialism.
But what you now have, since World War I, is a reaction against this, stripping away of the
idea that governments have a productive role to play. If government is not the director and
planner of the economy, then who is? It's the financial sector. It's Wall Street. So the
essence of neoliberalism that you were mentioning before, is indeed a doctrine of central
planning. It states that the central planning should be done by Wall Street, by the financial
sector.
The problem is, what is the objective of central planning by Wall Street? It's not to raise
living standards, and it's not to increase employment. It is to smash and grab. That is the
society we're in now.
A number of chapters of my book (I think five), describe how the Obama administration has
implemented this smash and grab, doing the exact opposite of what he promised voters. Obama has
implemented the Rubin-omics [Robert Rubin] doctrine of Wall Street to force America into what
looks like a chronic debt depression.
ED: Exactly right. I couldn't agree more. Let's take a short break and we'll continue the
discussion. Again, I'm chatting with Michael Hudson about his new book, Killing the Host: How
Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy.
The case of Latvia: Is it a success story, or a neoliberal disaster?
ED: I want to go back to some of the important issues that we introduced or alluded to in the
first part of our discussion. As I was mentioning to you off-air, a couple years ago I twice
interviewed your colleague Jeffrey Sommers, with whom you've worked and co-published a number
of papers. We talked a lot about many of the same issues that you and I are touching on.
Specifically Sommers – and I know you as well – did a lot of work in Latvia, a
country in the former Soviet space in Eastern Europe on the Baltic Sea. Your book has a whole
chapter on it, as well as references throughout the book.
So let's talk about how Latvia serves as a template for understanding the austerity model.
It is touted by technocrats of the financial elite as a major success story – how
austerity can work. I find it absurd on so many different levels. So tell us what happened in
Latvia, what the real costs were, and why neoliberals claim it as a success story.
MH: Latvia is the disaster story of the last two decades. That's why I took it as an object
lesson. You're right, it was Jeff Sommers who first brought me over to Latvia. I then became
Director of Economic Research and Professor of Economics at the Riga Graduate School of
Law.
When Latvia was given its independence when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, a number of
former Latvians had studied at George Washington University, and they brought neoliberalism
over there – the most extreme grabitization and de-industrialization of any country I
know. Latvians, Russians and other post-Soviet countries were under the impression that U.S.
advisors would help them become modernized like the U.S. economy – with high living and
consumption standards. But what they got was advice to emulate American experience. It got
something just the opposite – how to enable foreign investors and bankers to carve it up,
dismantle its industry and become a bizarre neoliberal experiment.
You may remember the Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, who in 2008 proposed a
flat tax to replace progressive taxation. The idea never could have won in the United States,
but Latvia was another story. The Americans set the flat tax at an amazingly low 12 percent of
income – and no significant property tax on real estate or capital gains. It was a
financial and real estate dream, and created a classic housing and financial bubble.
Jeff and I visited the head of the tax authority, who told us that she was appointed because
she had done her PhD dissertation on Latvia's last land value assessment – which was in
1917. They hadn't increased the assessments since then, because the Soviet economy didn't have
private land ownership and didn't even have a concept of rent-of-location for planning
purposes. (Neither did Russia.)
Latvia emerged from the Soviet Union without any debt, and also with a lot of real estate
and a highly educated population. But its political insiders turned over most of the government
enterprises to themselves. Latvia had been a computer center and also the money-laundering
center of the Soviet leadership already in the late 1980s (largely as a byproduct of Russian
oil exports through Ventspils), and Riga remains the money-laundering city for today's
Russia.
Privatizing housing and other property led to soaring real estate prices. But this bubble
wasn't financed by domestic banks. The Soviet Union didn't have private banks, because the
government had simply created the credit to fund the economy as needed. The main banks in a
position to lend to Latvia were Swedish and other Scandinavian banks. They pounce on the
lending opportunities to opened up by an entire nation whose real estate had almost no tax on
it. The result was the biggest real estate bubble in the world, along with Russia's. Latvians
found that in order to buy housing of their own, they had to go deeply into debt. Assets were
only given to insiders, not to the people.
A few years ago there was a reform movement in Latvia to stop the economic bleeding. Jeff
and I brought over American property appraisers and economists. We visited the leading bank,
regulatory agencies. Latvia was going broke because its population had to pay so much for real
estate. And it was under foreign-exchange pressure because debt service on its mortgage loans
was being paid to the Swedish and foreign banks. The bank regulator told us that her problem
was that her agency's clients are the banks, not the population. So the regulators thought of
themselves as working for the banks, even though they were foreign-owned. She acknowledged that
the banks were lending much more money than property actually was worth. But her regulatory
agency had a solution: It was to have not only the buyer be obligated to pay the mortgage, but
also the parents, uncles or aunts. Get the whole family involved, so that if the first signer
couldn't pay the cosigners would be obligated.
That is how Latvia stabilized its banking system. But it did so by destabilizing the
economy. The result is that Latvia has lost 20 percent of its population over the past decade
or so. For much the same reasons that Greece has lost 20 percent of its population, with
Ireland in a similar condition. The Latvians have a joke "Will the last person who leaves in
2020 please turn off the lights at the airport."
The population is shrinking because the economy is being run by looters, domestic and
foreign. I was shown an island in the middle of the Daugava river that runs to the middle of
Latvia, and was sold for half a million dollars. Our appraisers said that it's worth half a
billion dollars, potentially. There are no plans to raise the property tax to recapture these
gains for the country – so that it can lower its heaviest labor taxes in the world,
nearly half each paycheck for income tax and "social security" spending so that finance and
real estate won't be taxed.
A few years ago, I was at the only meeting of INET (George Soros's group) that I was invited
to, and in the morning one of the lead talks was on how Latvia was a model that all countries
could follow to balance the budget. Latvia has balanced the budget by cutting back public
spending, reducing employment and lowering wage levels while indebting its population and
forcing to immigrate. The neoliberal strategy is to balance by selling off whatever remains in
the public domain. Soros funded a foundation there (like similar ones he started in other
post-Soviet countries) to get a part of the loot.
These giveaways at insider prices have created a kleptocracy obviously loyal to neoliberal
economics. I go into the details in my chapter. It's hard to talk about it without losing my
temper, so I'm trying to be reasonable but it's a country that was destroyed and smashed. That
was the U.S. neoliberal model alternative to post-Stalinism. It wasn't a new American economy.
It was a travesty.
Why then does the population continue to vote for these neoliberals? The answer is, the
neoliberals say, the alternative is Stalinism. To Latvians, this means exile, deportations and
memories of the old pro-Russian policy. The Russian-speaking parties are the main people
backers of a social democracy party. But neoliberals have merged with Latvian nationalists.
They are not only making the election over resentment against the Russian-speaking population,
but the fact that many are Jewish.
I find it amazing to see someone who is Jewish, like George Soros, allying with anti-Semitic
and even neo-Nazi movements in Latvia, Estonia, and most recently, of course, Ukraine. It's an
irony that you could not have anticipated deductively. If you had written this plot in a
futuristic novel twenty years ago, no one would have believed that politics could turn more on
national and linguistic identity politics than economic self-interest. The issue is whether you
are Latvian or are Russian-Jewish, not whether you want to untax yourself and make? Voting is
along ethnic lines, not whether Latvians really want to be forced to emigrate to find work
instead of making Latvia what it could have been: an successful economy free of debt. Everybody
could have gotten their homes free instead of giving real estate only to the kleptocrats.
The government could have taxed the land's rental value rather than letting real estate
valuation be pledged to pay banks – and foreign banks at that. It could have been a
low-cost economy with high living standards, but neoliberals turned in into a smash and grab
exercise. They now call it an idea for other nations to follow. Hence, the U.S.-Soros strategy
re Ukraine.
ED: That's an excellent point. It's a more extreme case for a number of reasons in Ukraine
– the same tendency. They talk about, "Putin and his gaggle of Jews." That's the idea,
that Putin and the Jews will come in and steal everything – while neoliberals plan to
appropriate Ukraine's land and other resources themselves. In this intersection between
economics and politics, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia – the Baltic States of the former
Soviet Union – are really the front lines of NATO expansion. They were some of the first
and most pivotal countries brought into the NATO orbit. It is the threat of "Russian
aggression" via the enclave at Kaliningrad, or just Russia in general. That is the threat they
use to justify the NATO umbrella, and simultaneously to justify continuing these economic
policies. So in many ways Russia serves as this convenient villain on a political, military and
economic level.
MH: It's amazing how the popular press doesn't report what's going on. Primakov, who died a
few months ago, said during the last crisis a few years ago that Russia has no need to invade
Latvia, because it owns the oil export terminals and other key points. Russia has learned to
play the Western game of taking countries over financially and acquiring ownership. Russia
doesn't need to invade to control Latvia any more than America needs to invade to control Saudi
Arabia or the Near East. If it controls exports or access to markets, what motive would it have
to invade? As things stand, Russia uses Latvia it as a money laundering center.
The same logic applies to Ukraine today. The idea is that Russia is expansionary in a world
where no one can afford to be militarily expansionary. After Russia's disaster in Afghanistan,
no country in the world that's subject to democratic checks, whether it's America after the
Vietnam War or Russia or Europe, no democratic country can invade another country. All they can
do is drop bombs. This can't capture a country. For that you need major troop commitments.
In the trips that I've taken to Russia and China, they're in a purely defensive mode.
They're wondering why America is forcing all this. Why is it destroying the Near East, creating
a refugee problem and then telling Europe to clean up the mess it's created? The question is
why Europe is willing to keep doing this. Why is Europe part of NATO fighting in the Near East?
When America tells Europe, "Let's you and Russia fight over Ukraine," that puts Europe in the
first line of fire. Why would it have an interest in taking this risk, instead of trying to
build a mutual economic relationship with Russia as seemed to be developing in the 19th
century?
ED: That's the ultimate strategy that the United States has used – driving a wedge
between Russia and Europe. This is the argument that Putin and the Russians have made for a
long time. You can see tangible examples of that sort of a relationship even right now if you
look at the Nord Stream pipeline connecting Russian energy to German industrial output –
that is a tangible example of the economic relationship, that is only just beginning between
Russia and Europe. That's really what I think the United States wanted to put the brakes on, in
order to be able to maintain hegemony. The number one way it does that is through NATO.
MH: It's not only put the brakes on, it has created a new iron curtain. Two years ago,
Greece was supposed to privatize 5 billion euros of its public domain. Half of this, 2.5
billion, was to be the sale of its gas pipeline. But the largest bidder was Gazprom, and
America said, "No, you can't accept the highest bidder if its Russian." Same thing in Ukraine.
It has just been smashed economically, and the U.S. says, "No Ukrainian or Russian can buy into
the Ukrainian assets to be sold off. Only George Soros and his fellow Americans can buy into
this." This shows that the neoliberalism of free markets, of "let's everybody pay the highest
price," is only patter talk. If the winner in the rigged market is not the United States, it
sends in ISIS or Al Qaeda and the assassination teams, or backs the neo-Nazis as in
Ukraine.
So, we're in a New Cold War. Its first victims, apart from Southern Europe, will be the rest
of Europe. You can imagine how this is just beginning to tear European politics apart, with
Germany's Die Linke and similar parties making a resurgence.
The Troika and IMF doctrine of austerity and privatization
ED: I want to return us back to the book and some other key issues that you bring up that I
think are most important. One that we hear in the news all the time, and you write extensively
about it in the book, is the Troika. That's the IMF, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the
European Commission. It could be characterized as the political arm of finance capital in
Europe, one that imposes and manages austerity in the interest of the ruling class of finance
capital, as I guess we could call them. These are technocrats, not academically trained
economists primarily (maybe with a few exceptions), but I want you to talk a bit about how the
Troika functions and why it's so important in what we could call this crisis stage of
neoliberal finance capitalism.
MH: Basically, the Troika is run by Frankfurt bankers as foreclosure and collection agents.
If you read recently what former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis has written, and his
advisor James Galbraith, they said that when Syriza was elected in January, they tried to
reason with the IMF. But it said that it could only do what the European Central Bank said, and
that it would approve whatever they decided to do. The European Central Bank said that its role
wasn't to negotiate democracy. Its negotiators were not economists. They were lawyers. "All we
can say is, here's what you have to pay, here's how to do it. We're not here to talk about
whether this is going to bankrupt Greece. We're just interested in in how you're going to pay
the banks what they're owe. Your electric companies and other industry will have to go to
German companies, the other infrastructure to other investors – but not from Russia."
It's much like England and France divided up the Near East after World War I. There's a kind
of a gentlemen's agreement as to how the creditor economies will divide up Greece, carving it
up much like neighboring Yugoslavia to the north.
In 2001 the IMF made a big loan to Argentina (I have a chapter on Argentina too), and it
went bad after a year. So the IMF passed a rule, called the No More Argentinas rule, stating
that the Fund was not going to participate in a loan where the government obviously can not
pay.
A decade later came the Greek crisis of 2011. The staff found that Greece could not possibly
pay a loan large enough to bail out the French, German and other creditors. So there has to be
a debt write-down of the principal. The staff said that, and the IMF's board members agreed.
But its Managing Director, Strauss-Kahn wanted to run for the presidency of France, and most of
the Greek bonds were held by French banks. French President Sarkozy said "Well you can't win
political office in France if you stiff the French banks." And German Chancellor Merkel said
that Greece had to pay the German banks. Then, to top matters, President Obama came over to the
G-20 meetings and they said that the American banks had made such big default insurance
contracts and casino gambles betting that Greece would pay, that if it didn't, if the Europeans
and IMF did not bail out Greece, then the American banks might go under. The implicit threat
was that the U.S. would make sure that Europe's financial system would be torn to pieces.
ED: And Michael, I just want to clarify, I guess it's sort of a question: about what you're
talking about here in terms of Geithner and Obama coming in: These would be credit default
swaps and collateralized debt obligations?
MH: Yes. U.S. officials said that Wall Street had made so many gambles that if the French
and German banks were not paid, they would turn to their Wall Street insurers. The Wall Street
casino would go under, bringing Europe's banking system down with it. This prompted the
European Central Bank to say that it didn't want the IMF to be a part of the Troika unless it
agreed to take a subordinate role and to support the ECB bailout. It didn't matter whether
Greece later could pay or not. In that case, creditors would smash and grab. This lead the some
of the IMF European staff to resign, most notably Susan Schadler, and later to act as whistle
blowers to write up what happened.
The same thing happened again earlier this year in Greece. Lagarde said that the IMF doesn't
do debt reduction, but would give them a little longer to pay. Not a penny, not a euro will be
written down, but the debt will be stretched out and perhaps the interest rate will be lowered
– as long as Greece permits foreigners to grab its infrastructure, land and natural
resources.
The staff once again leaked a report to the Financial Times (and maybe also the Wall Street
Journal) that said that Greece couldn't pay, there's no way it can later sell off the IMF loan
to private bondholders, so any bailout would be against the IMF's own rules. Lagarde was
embarrassed, and tried to save face by saying that Germany has to agree to stretch out the
payments on the debt – as if that somehow would enable it to pay, while its assets pass
into foreign hands, which will remit their profits back home and subject Greece to even steeper
deflation.
Then, a few weeks ago, you have the Ukraine crisis and the IMF is not allowed to make loans
to countries that cannot pay. But now the whole purpose is to make loans to countries who can't
pay, so that creditors can turn around and demand that they pay by selling off their public
domain – and implicitly, force their population to emigrate.
ED: Also, technically they're not supposed to be making loans to countries that are at war,
and they're ignoring that rule as well.
MH: That's the second violation of IMF rules. At least in the earlier Greek bailout, Strauss
Kahn got around the "No More Argentinas" rule by having a new IMF policy that if a country is
systemically important, the IMF can lend it the money even if it can't pay, even though it's
not credit-worthy, if its default would cause a problem in the global financial system (meaning
a loss by Wall Street or other bankers). But Ukraine is not systemically important. It's part
of the Russian system, not the western system. Most of its trade is with Russia.
As you just pointed out, when Lagarde made the IMF's last Ukrainian loan, she said that she
hoped its economy would stabilize instead of fighting more war in its eastern export region.
The next day, President Poroshenko said that now that it had got the loan, it could go to war
against the Donbass, the Russian speaking region. Some $1.5 billion of the IMF loan was given
to banks run by Kolomoisky, one of the kleptocrats who fields his own army. His banks send the
IMF's gift abroad to his own foreign banks, using his domestic Ukrainian money to pay his own
army, allied with Ukrainian nationalists flying the old Nazi SS insignia fighting against the
Russian speakers. So in effect, the IMF is serving as an am of the U.S. military and State
Department, just as the World Bank has long been.
ED: I want to interject two points here for listeners who haven't followed it as closely.
Number one is the private army that you're talking about – the Right Sector which is
essentially a mercenary force of Nazis in the employ of Kolomoisky. They're also part of what's
now called the Ukrainian National Guard. This paramilitary organization that is being paid
directly by Kolomoisky. Number two – and this relates back to something that you were
saying earlier, Michael – that IMF loan went to pay for a lot of the military equipment
that Kiev has now used to obliterate the economic and industrial infrastructure of Donbass,
which was Ukraine's industrial heartland. So from the western perspective it's killing two
birds with one stone. If they can't strip the assets and capitalize on them, at least they can
destroy them, because the number one customer was Russia.
MH: Russia had made much of its military hardware in Ukraine, including its liftoff engines
for satellites. The West doesn't want that to continue. What it wants for its own investors is
Ukraine's land, the gas rights in the Black Sea, electric and other public utilities, because
these are the major tollbooths to extract economic rent from the economy. Basically, US/NATO
strategists want to make sure, by destroying Ukraine's eastern export industry, that Ukraine
will be chronically bankrupt and will have to settle its balance-of-payments deficit by selling
off its private domain to American, German and other foreign buyers.
ED: Yes, that's Monsanto, and that's Hunter Biden on the Burisma board (the gas company).
It's like you said earlier, you wouldn't even believe it if someone would have made it up. It's
so transparent, what they're doing in Ukraine.
Financialization of pension plans and retirement savings
I want to switch gears a bit in the short time we have remaining, because I have two more
things I want to talk about. Referring back to this parasitical relationship on the real
economy, one aspect that's rarely mentioned is the way in which many regular working people get
swindled. One example that comes to my mind is the mutual funds and other money managers that
control what pension funds and lots of retirees invest in. Much of their savings are tied up in
heavily leveraged junk bonds and in places like Greece, but also recently in Puerto Rico which
is going through a very similar scenario right now. So in many ways, US taxpayers and
pensioners are funding the looting and exploitation of these countries and they're then
financially invested in continuing the destruction of these countries. It's almost like these
pensioners are human shields for Wall Street.
MH: This actually is the main theme of my book – financialization. Mutual funds are
not pension funds. They're different. But half a century ago a new term was coined: pension
fund capitalism, sometimes called pension fund socialism. Then we got back to Orwellian
doublethink when Pinochet came to power behind the natural alliance of the Chicago School with
Kissinger at the State Department. They immediately organized what they called labor
capitalism. n labor capitalism labor is the victim, not the beneficiary. The first thing they
did was compulsory setting aside of wages in the form of ostensible pension funds controlled by
the employers. The employers could do whatever they wanted with it. Ultimately they invested
their corporate pension funds in their own stocks or turned them over to the banks, around
which their grupo conglomerates were organized. They then simply drove the businesses with
employee pension funds under, wiping out the pension fund liabilities – after moving the
assets into their captive banks. Businesses were left as empty corporate shells.
Something similar happened in America a few years ago with the Chicago Tribune. Real estate
developer Sam Zell borrowed money, bought the Tribune, using the Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(ESOP) essentially to pay off the bondholders. He then drove/looted the Tribune into bankruptcy
and wiped out the stockholders. Employees brought a fraudulent conveyance suit.
Already fifty years ago, critics noted that about half of the ESOPs are wiped out, because
they're invested by the employers, often in their own stock. Managers give themselves stock
options, which are given value by employee purchases. Something similar occurs with pension
funds in general. Employee wages are paid into pension funds, which bid up the stock prices in
general. On an economy-wide basis, employees are buying the stock that managers give
themselves. That's pension fund capitalism.
The underlying problem with this kind of financialization of pensions and retirement savings
is that modern American industry is being run basically for financial purposes, not for
industrial purposes. The major industrial firms have been financialized. For many years General
Motors made most of its profits from its financial arm, General Motors Acceptance Corporation.
Likewise General Electric. When I was going to school 50 years ago, Macy's made most of its
money not by selling products, but by getting customers to use its credit cards. In effect, it
used its store to get people to use its credit cards.
Last year, 92% of the earnings of the Fortune 100 companies were used for stock buy-backs --
corporations buying back their stock to support its price – or for dividend payouts, also
to increase the stock's price (and thus management bonuses and stock options). The purpose of
running a company in today's financialized world is to increase the price of the stock, not to
expand the business. And who do they sell the stock to? Essentially, pension funds.
There's a lot of money coming in. I don't know if you remember, but George W. Bush wanted to
privatize Social Security. The idea was to spend all of its contributions – the 15+% that
FICA withholds from workers paychecks every month – into the stock market. This would
fuel a giant stock market boom. Money management companies, the big banks, would get an
enormous flow of commissions, and speculators would get rich off the inflow. It would make
billionaires into hundred-billionaires. All this would soar like the South Sea Bubble, until
the American population began to age – or, more likely, begin to be unemployed. At that
point the funds would begin to sell the stocks to pay retirees. This would withdraw money from
the stock market. Prices would crash as speculators and insiders sold out, wiping out the
savings that workers had put into the scheme.
The basic idea is that when Wall Street plays finance, the casino wins. When employees and
pension funds play the financial game, they lose and the casino wins.
ED: Right, and just as an example for listeners – to make what Michael was just
talking about it even more real – if we think back to 2009 and the collapse of General
Motors, it was not General Motors automotive manufacturing that was collapsing. It was GMAC,
their finance arm, which was leveraged on credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations
and similar financial derivatives – what they call exotic instruments. So when Obama
comes in and claimed that he "saved General Motors," it wasn't really that. He came in for the
Wall Street arm of General Motors.
Obama's demagogic role as Wall Street shill for the Rubinomics gang
MH: That's correct. He was the Wall Street candidate, promoted by Robert Rubin, who was
Clinton's Treasury Secretary. Basically, American economic policies can run by a combination of
Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, often interchangeably.
ED: This was demonstrated very clearly in the first days of Obama taking office. Who does he
meet with to talk about the financial crisis? He invites the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and JP
Morgan, Bank of America, Citi and all of the rest of them. They're the ones who come to the
White House. It's been written about in books, in the New Yorker and elsewhere. Obama basically
says, "Don't worry guys, I got this."
MH: Ron Suskind wrote this. He said that Obama said, "I'm the only guy standing between you
and the pitchforks. Listen to me: I can basically fool them." (I give the actual quote in my
book.) The interesting thing is that the signs of this meeting were all erased from the White
House website, but Suskind has it in his book. Obama emerges as one of the great demagogues of
the century. He may be even worse than Andrew Jackson.
ED: So much of it is based on obvious policies and his actions. The moment he came to power
was a critical moment when action was needed. Not only did he not take the right action, he did
exactly what Wall Street wanted. In many ways we can look back to 2008 when he was championing
the TARP, the bailout, and all the rest of that. None of that would have been possible without
Obama. That's something that Democrats like to avoid in their conversations.
MH: That's exactly the point. It was Orwellian rhetoric. He ran as the candidate of Hope and
Change, but his real role was to smash hope and prevent change. By keeping the debts in place
instead of writing them down as he had promised, he oversaw the wrecking of the American
economy.
He had done something similar in Chicago, when he worked as a community organizer for the
big real estate interests to tear up the poorer neighborhoods where the lower income Blacks
lived. His role was to gentrify them and jack up property prices to move in higher-income
Blacks. This made billions for the Pritzker family. So Penny Pritzker introduced him to Robert
Rubin. Obama evidently promised to let Rubin appoint his cabinet, so they appointed the vicious
anti-labor Rahm Emanuel, now Chicago's mayor, as his Chief of Staff to drive any Democrat to
the left of Herbert Hoover out of the party. Obama essentially pushed the Democrats to the
right, as the Republicans gave him plenty of room to move rightward and still be the "lesser
evil."
So now you have people like Donald Trump saying that he's for what Dennis Kucinich was for:
a single payer healthcare program. Obama fought against this, and backed the lobbyists of the
pharmaceutical and health insurance sectors. His genius is being able to make most voters
believe that he's on their side when he's actually defending the Wall Street special interests
that were his major campaign contributors.
ED: That's true. You can see that in literally every arena in which Obama has taken action.
From championing so-called Obamacare, which is really a boon for the insurance industry, to the
charter schools to privatize public education and also become a major boon for Wall Street, for
Pearson and all these major education corporations. In terms of real estate, in the
gentrification, all the rest. Literally every perspective, every angle from which you look at
Obama, he is a servant of finance capital of investors, not of the people. And that's what the
Democratic Party has become, delivering its constituency to Wall Street.
A left-wing economic alternative
MH: So here's the problem: How do we get the left to realize this? How do we get it to talk
about economics instead of ethnic identity and sexual identity and culture alone? How do we get
the left to do what they were talking about a century ago – economic reform and how to
take the side of labor, consumers and debtors? How do we tell the Blacks that it's more
important to get a well paying job? That's the way to gain power. I think Deng said: "Black
cat, white cat, it doesn't matter as long as it catches mice." How do we say "Black president,
white president, it doesn't matter, as long as they give jobs for us and help our community
economically?"
ED: I think that's important and I want to close with this issue: solutions. One of the
things I appreciate in reading your book is that it is broken up into sections. The final
section, I think, is really important. You titled it: "There Is An Alternative." That is of
course a reference to Margaret Thatcher's TINA (There Is No Alternative). That ideology and
mindset took over the left, or at least the nominally left-wing parties. So you're saying that
there is an alternative. In that section you propose a number of important reforms. You argue
that they would restore industrial prosperity. Now, I'm not asking you to name all of them, to
run down the list, but maybe touch on a little bit of what you included, and why that's
important for beginning to build this alternative.
MH: There are two main aims that classical economists had 200 years ago. One was to free
society from debt. You didn't want people to have to spend their lives working off the debt,
whether for a home, for living or to get an education. Second, you wanted to fund industry, not
by debt but by equity. That is what the Saint-Simonians and France did. It's what German
banking was famous for before World War I. There was a debate in the English speaking
countries, especially in England saying that maybe England and the Allies might lose World War
I because the banks are running everything, and finance should be subordinated to fund
industry. It can be used to help the economy grow, not be parasitic.
But instead, our tax laws make debt service tax deductible. If a company pays $2 billion a
year in dividends, a corporate raider can buy it on credit and, if there's a 50% stock rate, he
can pay $4 billion to bondholders instead of $2 billion to stockholders. Over the past twenty
years the American stock market has become a vehicle for corporate raiding, replacing equity
with debt. That makes break-even costs much higher.
The other point I'm making concerns economic rent. The guiding idea of an economic and tax
system should be to lower the cost of living and doing business. I show what the average
American wage earner has to pay. Under the most recent federal housing authority laws, the
government guarantees mortgage loans that absorb up to 43% of family income. Suppose you pay
this 43% of income for your home mortgage, after the 15% of your wages set aside for Social
Security under FICA.
Instead of funding Social Security out of the general budget and hence out of what is still
progressive taxation, Congress has said that the rich shouldn't pay for Social Security; only
blue-collar workers should pay. So if you make over $115,000, you don't have to pay anything.
In addition to that 15% wage tax, about 20% ends up being paid for other taxes – sales
taxes, income taxes, and various other taxes that fall on consumers. And perhaps another 10%
goes for bank loans besides mortgages – credit card loans, student loans and other
debts.
That leaves only about 25% of what American families earn to be spent on goods and services
– unless they borrow to maintain their living standards. This means that if you would
give wage earners all of their food, all their transportation, all their clothing for nothing,
they still could not compete with foreign economies, because so much of the budget has to go
for finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE). That's why our employment is not going to
recover. That's why our living standards are not going to recover.
Even if wages do go up for some workers, they're going to have to pay it to the bank for
education loans, mortgage loans (or rent), bank debt and credit card debt, and now also for our
amazingly expensive and rent-extracting medical insurance and health care and medications. The
result is that if they try to join the middle class by getting higher education and buying a
home, they will spend the rest of their lives paying the banks. They don't end up keeping their
higher wages. They pay them to the banks.
ED: You don't have to tell me. I'm living that reality. Interestingly, in that final section
of your book you talk about alternatives, like a public banking option that many people have
discussed. You talk about the Social Security cap that you were just mentioning, and focus on
taxing economic rent. Some critics would suggest that these sorts of reforms are not going to
be able to salvage the capitalist model that is so ensconced in the United States. So I want to
give you a chance to sort of present that argument or maybe rebut it.
MH: I won't rebut that criticism, because it's right. Marx thought that it was the task of
industrial capitalism to free economies from the economic legacies of feudalism. He saw that
the bourgeois parties wanted to get rid of the "excrescences" of the industrial capitalist
marketplace. They wanted to get rid of the parasites, the landowners and usurious creditors.
Marx said that even if you get rid of the parasites, even if you socialize finance and land
that he dealt with in volume II and III of Capital, you're still going to have the Volume I
problem. You're still going to have the exploitation problem between employers and employees
– the labor/capital problem.
My point is that most academic Marxists and the left in general have focused so much on the
fight of workers and labor unions against employers that they tend to overlook that there's
this huge FIRE sector – Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate – tsunami is swamping
the economy. Finance is wrecking industry and government, along with labor. The reforms that
Marx expected the bourgeois parties to enact against rentiers haven't occurred. Marx was overly
optimistic about the role of industrial capitalism and industrialized banking to prepare the
ground for socialism.
This means that until you complete the task of freeing of society from feudalism –
corrosive banking and economic rent as unearned income – you can't solve the industrial
problems that Marx dealt with in Volume I. And of course even when you do solve them, these
problems of labor exploitation and markets will still exist.
ED: Yes, absolutely. Well we're out of time. I want to thank you for coming onto the
program. Listeners, you heard it. There's so much information to digest here. The book is
really brilliant, I think essential reading, required reading – Killing the Host: How
Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy, available through
CounterPunch, as well as on Amazon. Michael Hudson professor of economics at University of
Missouri Kansas City, his work is all over the place. Find it regularly on CounterPunch, as
well as on his website michael-hudson.com. Michael Hudson thanks so much for coming on
CounterPunch Radio.
MH: It's great to be here. It's been a wonderful discussion.
The key point is that financial industry needs to be strictly regulated and suppressed, because after a cirtain point it stage
coup d'état, banksters come to power and turn the industry into cancer for the society with it uncontrolled parasitic growth.
Notable quotes:
"... In economics, the financial sector is typically lumped in with the insurance sector and real estate (the financial portion of the real estate sector, not construction) sector. Together, the sectors are often abbreviated and called the FIRE sector. In this article I will talk mainly about the finance portion of the FIRE sector since it is by far the largest, most visible, and most corrupt. ..."
"... The job of the finance sector is simply to manage existing resources . It creates nothing. Therefore, the smaller the financial sector is the more real wealth there is for the rest of society to enjoy. The bigger the financial sector becomes the more money it siphons off from the productive sectors. ..."
"... Neither of these two friendly fellows actually does much, if anything, in the way of actual investing. Sure, they learn the lingo, dress sharply, and probably know more than the average Joe, but they don't call the shots. That happens at Big Bank HQ. ..."
"... Somewhere in the belly of the beast there is a gaggle of highly paid, largely worthless economists and market technicians. Using some combination of tea leaves, voodoo, crystal balls, and tarot cards, these guys come up with the selection of one-size-fits-most, happy-meal portfolios that clients will be invested in. Actually, scratch that. Portfolios aren't assembled using all kinds of mystical methods; they are assembled using cold hard cash. (It's the finance sector. Did you think they spoke a language other than green?) See, various mutual fund companies pay marketing fees and other dubiously legal payments to the advisory firms to get them to sell their funds. In 2010, mutual fund companies paid $3.5B in perfectly legal "pay to play" schemes to get their funds featured in various investment lineups. ..."
"... One significant source of profit for the financial sector has been exploiting public, taxpayer-owned infrastructure. It should be blatantly obvious that these deals are bad for citizens, as the fees charged to citizens for use of the asset must not only cover servicing costs and maintenance capital expenditures but must also generate profit for the firms buying the assets. ..."
"... As the financial sector funnels more and more resources into lobbying and bribes (let's face it, campaign contributions are nothing more than legal bribery), it has been able to strip an ever-greater amount of state-owned assets from the public. Public asset strip mining is one of the chief causes of the increasing profitability of the financial sector. ..."
Before I begin this article want to make the point that what I'm about to say doesn't apply to everyone in the industry. While
the average mutual fund, broker, wealth manager, and hedge fund charges high fees and delivers poor results it doesn't apply to everyone.
I know lots of good, honest hedge fund managers that charge reasonable fees. I know lots of wealth managers that act in their client's
best interest and don't gouge them on fees. Unfortunately these are the exceptions rather than the rule.
Over the past year or so, the issue of rising income inequality in the United States (and even worldwide) has come front and center.
Most of what I've read has focused on wages, union membership, unemployment, taxation, government subsidy, and executive pay issues.
There is one issue whose role I think is overlooked in the mainstream media: the role the financial sector plays in exacerbating
income inequality. In fact, I believe the financial sector is one of the prime causes, and at its current point is perhaps the greatest
parasite in human history. It is sucking wealth from the productive sectors of the economy at an unprecedented rate.
Before we go any further, I want to define the term "income inequality." When I use that term, I am referring to the fact that,
on average, the incomes and standard of living of American workers is not keeping pace with productivity. I'm also using the term,
in part, to explain why workers and executives in some parts of the economy are overpaid in relation to the benefits they provide.
What I am not doing is making a blanket statement that money should be taken away from successful, hardworking people and
given or "redistributed" to the lazy.
The Role of the Financial Sector
In economics, the financial sector is typically lumped in with the insurance sector and real estate (the financial portion
of the real estate sector, not construction) sector. Together, the sectors are often abbreviated and called the FIRE sector.
In this article I will talk mainly about the finance portion of the FIRE sector since it is by far the largest, most visible, and
most corrupt.
The problem is that the financial, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sectors do not actually produce any goods or services. If
you go on Google Finance you'll see it divides the economy into ten sectors: energy, basic materials, industrials, cyclical consumer
goods, non-cyclical consumer goods, financials, healthcare, technology, telecommunications, and utilities.
The nine nonfinancial sectors all produce goods or services. For example, the energy sector companies drill for our oil and refine
it into gasoline (e.g., ExxonMobil); the basic materials sector mines our iron (BHP Billiton) and refines it into steel (Nucor);
the industrial sector produces the mining equipment (Caterpillar) used by the previously mentioned sectors; the cyclical consumer
goods sector produces our cars (Ford) or sells our everyday items (Wal-Mart); the non-cyclical consumer goods sector sells the things
we need no matter what, such as groceries (Safeway); the healthcare sector provides the medicines that heal us (Johnson & Johnson);
the technology sector gives us the computers and software we use (Apple); the telecommunications sector gives us the ability to communicate
(Verizon); and the utility sector gives us the power to run our homes and businesses (Duke Energy).
The financial sector? Well, according to Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chief academic apologist for the financial sector, this
is what it's supposed to do:
Those who work in banking, venture capital, and other financial firms are in charge of allocating the economy's investment resources.
They decide, in a decentralized and competitive way, which companies and industries will shrink and which will grow.
The job of the finance sector is simply to manage existing resources . It creates nothing. Therefore, the smaller
the financial sector is the more real wealth there is for the rest of society to enjoy. The bigger the financial sector becomes the
more money it siphons off from the productive sectors.
The graph below shows how the financial sector has grown since 1960. The figures are shown as a percentage of investment (using
both gross and net investment).
Graphic source: Jacobin Magazine
As you can see, the financial sector has almost doubled or tripled in size since 1960. That means it is extracting double or triple
the amount of money from the real economy!
Just how much?
I want to go through several areas of the economy to show you how the financial sector is extracting money and offering no benefit.
The Grift in Your Retirement Plan
I want to start with the industry I work in, wealth management. When I started my business, I was cognizant of how investors were
ill served by the traditional model of wealth management and vowed to run my business differently. Unfortunately, a vast majority
of the financial industry has built an unrivaled apparatus for extracting huge sums of money from retirees and mom-and-pop investors.
Say, you're sitting on your couch, watching TV and thinking about retirement. You just got part of your inheritance and think
investing it for the future would be a sensible idea. Imagine you haven't the slightest idea how to get started. Then a commercial
comes on with Tommy Lee Jones telling you how trustworthy Ameriprise is. Maybe you hear the reassuring voice of John Houseman pitching
Smith Barney, or you might see the iconic bull charging across the desert for Merrill Lynch.
Say you decide to go down to your local brokerage and meet with a financial advisor. His (or her) pitch sounds good, so you decide
to become a client.
The first problem is the guy you met. Remember how he told you he has his finger on the pulse of the market, he has access to
the best investment research, he is always taking continuing education classes, and he is always monitoring your portfolio? He isn't.
He could be a complete moron. He got hired (and survived and thrived) because he is a good salesman. Nothing less and nothing more.
He takes his orders on what to sell from the top -- the gaggle of people with their fingers in your retirement pie, helping themselves
to regular bites.
The first person behind the scenes telling our hapless salesman what to do is some sort of office, district, or regional manager.
This is manager is just like the salesman but with more ambition. Almost all of these guys were promoted from sales, and their job
is do an impersonation of Alec Baldwin from Glengarry Glen Ross, yelling at the underperformers ("Coffee is for closers!") to get
out there and sell the turd of the month. ("XYZ Mutual Fund Company just paid our firm $200M," this manager says, "so get out there
and sell their funds! And, Jones, if you don't gross $20,000 by the end of this month you're fired! Meeting adjourned.")
Neither of these two friendly fellows actually does much, if anything, in the way of actual investing. Sure, they learn the
lingo, dress sharply, and probably know more than the average Joe, but they don't call the shots. That happens at Big Bank HQ.
Somewhere in the belly of the beast there is a gaggle of highly paid, largely worthless economists and market technicians.
Using some combination of tea leaves, voodoo, crystal balls, and tarot cards, these guys come up with the selection of one-size-fits-most,
happy-meal portfolios that clients will be invested in. Actually, scratch that. Portfolios aren't assembled using all kinds of mystical
methods; they are assembled using cold hard cash. (It's the finance sector. Did you think they spoke a language other than green?)
See, various mutual fund companies pay marketing fees and other dubiously legal payments to the advisory firms to get them to sell
their funds. In 2010, mutual fund companies
paid $3.5B in perfectly legal "pay to play" schemes to get their funds featured in various investment lineups.
You, the investor, are usually charged somewhere around 1% to 1.5% of assets annually for this "service." I've seen clients charged
as much as 1.65% and I've come across firms advertising fees as high as 2% per year for clients with small account balances. For
large portfolios (typically $1M or more) the fees start going down and I've seen rates as low as .5% or less. These fees are split
up between your advisor, the district manager, and the firm itself. Keep in mind that these are fees before any investments have
been made!
So who actually makes the investments in stocks and bonds? It's the portfolio managers at the mutual fund companies. According
to the Investment Company Institute 2011 Fact Book (the ICI is a pro-mutual fund organization), the average mutual fund in
2010 charged 1.47% of assets annually. That's in addition to an average up-front sales charge of 1%.
Why so expensive? Well, the funds are towing a lot of dead weight. According to the ICI 2013 Fact Book, only 42% of mutual
fund employees were employed in fund management positions or fund administrative positions. The rest, 58%, were employed in either
investor servicing (34%) or sales and distribution (24%) job functions.
Like any good infomercial says, "But wait! There's more!" When you buy a stock or bond, you can't just go grab it off the shelf
like you are shopping at Wal-Mart. You need to go through a brokerage. A 1999 study by Chalmers, Edelen, and Kadlec found that the
average mutual fund incurs trading expenses of .78% per annum. A newer study in 2004 by Karceski, Livingston, and O'Neal found brokerage
commissions cost funds around .38% per annum, or .58% if you account for the effect trading large blocks of stock has on the bid-ask
spread.
But wait! There's more! Mutual funds and your average retail investor are relatively unsophisticated, so a new industry has popped
up to take advantage of them. It's called "high frequency trading" or HFT for short. These are powerful computers programmed to take
advantage of "dumb" traders in the market. These HFT firms place their computers physically next to the stock exchange computers
in the datacenters and buy access to market quotes milliseconds before they are made public. They use these and other advantages
to skim
profits from other legitimate investors (that is, people buying stocks because they want to own part of the underlying company).
All told, it's not uncommon to see investors incurring annual expenses of 2%, all the way up to 4% per year.
Institutions and the Rich Have the Same Problem
The problem isn't just limited to Joe Six-pack Retiree. Large institutional investors, such as pension funds, and "sophisticated"
rich investors get taken to the cleaners too.
Once upon a time someone came up with a great idea: Since an all-stock portfolio is volatile, why not "hedge" the portfolio and
sell some stocks short? If you bet that good stocks will go up (buying stocks in the good companies or going long) and bad stocks
will go down (selling the stock short) then you could limit volatility and maybe make some extra money. (You'd make money both when
the good stocks went up and the bad stocks went down). It was and is a pretty good idea when done correctly. Unfortunately, the term
"hedge fund," like the term "mutual fund," has lost its original meaning. The term hedge fund is now used to refer to any type of
pooled investment vehicle that is limited to select clients (usually rich, sophisticated investors and institutions, although the
rules vary worldwide).
The rule of thumb is that hedge funds charge a 2% per year management fee and keep 20% of all profits, the proverbial "2 and 20"
compensation. According to a
WSJ article , this
old adage isn't too far off; the average hedge fund charges 1.6% per year and keeps 18% of profits.
In 2012, hedge funds removed $50.5B from their investors' pockets. In fact, according to an article in Jacobin Magazine, the top
25 hedge fund managers make more money than the CEOs of all S&P 500 companies combined. Combined!
Have they earned it? Well, the answer seems to be no. I pulled the last four years of return data for two hedge fund indices:
the Barclays Hedge Fund Index and the Credit Suisse AllHedge Index. These two indices track thousands of hedge funds across the globe.
I compared them with the returns of the Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund and the Vanguard Total World Bond Market Index Fund
as well as a 50/50 portfolio of the two Vanguard Funds. All returns shown are net of fees.
The Vanguard stock fund trounced both hedge fund indices, and the Credit Suisse index managed only to beat the returns of bonds
by .01%.
Right about now you will hear the howls of the "hedgies" complaining. I wasn't quite fair to the hedge funds. A lot, but not all,
of them are hedged so returns in down markets will be better and four years isn't a terribly long time to look at.
The two graphs below show the returns for the Credit Suisse index since 2004 and the maximum drawdowns (losses) since 2004.
First, over 10 years the returns for hedge funds are atrocious, only about 25% in total. They do have a point that the draw downs
are lower. The maximum losses experienced during the downturn only averaged about 25%. Fine, but the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index
had barely any draw downs during the crisis and returned over 50% during a similar time period.
Unfortunately, Vanguard does not have return data for any of its World Stock funds for a complete 2008 calendar year so I was
unable to get exact data for my 50/50 portfolio. But I'd be willing to bet it beats the hedge fund indices on a risk adjusted basis.
When you hear about underfunded pension plans, part of the blame lies with pension investment committees and their investments
in hedge funds. These funds, in aggregate, have not earned the fees they charge and have instead funneled the money of retirees into
the hands of a wealthy few.
I'm not alone in reaching this conclusion. Pension funds are slowly starting to see the light and
reducing their allocations to "alternative" investments, such as hedge funds, and
reallocating the capital to indexed products or negotiating with the funds for lower fees.
It's not just the traditional investment arena where the financial sector has run wild. Its unending quest for siphoning money
from the economy has spilled out into other areas.
Speculation in Commodities Costs Main Street Billions
Speculation by the financial sector in the commodities market is impacting the entire world. The passage of the Commodities Futures
Modernization Act (CFMA) has allowed big banks to engage in almost limitless speculation in the commodities market. Wall Street has
convinced everyone from individual investors to pension funds and endowments that they need to include commodities in their portfolios
for deworsification, I mean, diversification purposes. Between investors plowing more than $350B into the commodities market and
what appears to be outright manipulation of commodities prices, the financial sector has increased the costs of everything from wheat
to heating oil and aluminum to gasoline.
An executive for MillerCoors testified that manipulation of the aluminum market cost manufacturers over $3B. The World Bank estimated
that in 2010, 44 million people worldwide were pushed into poverty because of high food prices. The chief cause?
More than 100 studies
agree the cause is speculation in the commodities market. (Goldman Sachs made
$440M in 2012
from food market speculation.) For Americans who love their cars (and SUVs), the biggest impact might be felt at the gas pump where
experts estimate
that financial speculation has added anywhere from $1 to $1.50 to gas prices.
For more information on speculation in the commodities, I recommend Matt Taibbi's
excellent pieces, in-depth information at Better Markets , or some
of myarticles on commodities.
If you think it's bad enough that Wall Street is raising the price of your food, heating oil, gasoline, and Pepsi, then wait until
you get a load of one of the Street's other ingenious ideas for helping themselves to more of your money.
Corruption of Public Infrastructure
One significant source of profit for the financial sector has been exploiting public, taxpayer-owned infrastructure. It should
be blatantly obvious that these deals are bad for citizens, as the fees charged to citizens for use of the asset must not only cover
servicing costs and maintenance capital expenditures but must also generate profit for the firms buying the assets.
The first and most obvious examples of this type of fraud (I choose to use the term "fraud" because I believe that is exactly
what these deals are) are government entities selling public, taxpayer-owned infrastructure, such as road, bridges, parking facilities,
and ports, to the private sector so that they can extract rent from the users. The deals are usually touted as saving taxpayers money
and letting the "more efficient" private sector better manage the asset. This is false. Many studies show private ownership of public
goods does not lead to any cost savings. A comprehensive econometric
study done in 2010 of all available public vs. private studies by Germa Bel, Xavier Fageda, Mildred E. Warner at the University
of Barcelona found no cost saving in privatizing public water or solid waste management services and infrastructure.
The case is no different when it comes to public roads. A
2007 paper by US PIRG found that
privatizing roads never benefits citizens. Financial firms were typically able to buy the assets on the cheap and then raise toll
rates while usually sneaking language into the agreements that prevented governments from building competing infrastructure. The
paper presented evidence that the Indiana Toll Road lease will cost taxpayers at least $7.5B.
One of the most egregious examples of the financial sector extracting rent is the
2009 sale of Chicago's parking meters
to a consortium led by Morgan Stanley. Shortly after the lease was finalized, rates at many parking meters increased (in some case
by quadruple the amount). The Chicago Inspector General found that the city was underpaid by almost $1B for the lease. Meanwhile,
in 2010 Morgan Stanley banked $58 million in profits from the parking meters. With
no way
out of the deal , the citizens of Chicago are now paying Morgan Stanley for the right to use assets they used to own!
The second way in which taxpayers are exploited by the financial sector is so-called public-private partnerships (also referred
to as PPP or P 3 ). There is no set definition for what constitutes a PPP arrangement, and it is possible some might be
beneficial in limited circumstances. I want to focus on one specific type of PPP that enriches the financial sector: when public
projects are privately financed. There is absolutely no reason for any government project to ever require paying "rent" to the financial
sector in the form of financing.
The United States federal government is the monopoly supplier of US dollars. It can add them to the economy at will through deficit
spending or remove them via taxation. There is no earthly reason for a public entity to be forced to depend on the private sector
to provide any type of financing. The only constraint on whether or not money should be spent is whether the economy is at full capacity
(full employment and full industrial capacity utilization) where the additional deficit spending may cause inflation.
State and local governments are unable to issue currency and therefore must depend on revenue raised via taxation, distributions
from the federal government, or money raised through bond issuance. Even then, studies have shown that PPPs are more expensive compared
to the state or local entity securing financing through the municipal bond market.
As the financial sector funnels more and more resources into lobbying and bribes (let's face it, campaign contributions are
nothing more than legal bribery), it has been able to strip an ever-greater amount of state-owned assets from the public. Public
asset strip mining is one of the chief causes of the increasing profitability of the financial sector.
So far we've dealt with examples that are pretty easy to see. Everyone who owns a car knows that gas prices have been rising too
fast and food is more expensive. The citizens of Chicago know they are getting shafted on the parking meter deal since parking rates
have quadrupled. But there are hidden areas of the economy where the financial sector is ripping off the public too.
Interest Rate Manipulation
Do you know what LIBOR is? And what it's used for? A lot of financial types read my newsletters, so I'm sure some of you do. But
the average man or woman on the street likely does not.
LIBOR stands for London Interbank Offered Rate and is the average interest rate banks in London estimate that they would be charged
if they borrowed from other banks. This rate is used worldwide by mortgage lenders, credit card agencies, banks, and other financial
institutions to set interest rates. By some estimates, more than $350T in financial products, derivatives, and contracts are tied
to LIBOR.
In 2012, it was discovered that, since 1991, banks were falsely inflating or deflating the interest rates they reported. (Remember
banks essentially make up their own interest rates and report them with the results being essentially averaged and reported as LIBOR.)
The banks did this in order to profit from trades or to make themselves look more creditworthy than they were.
The Macquarie Group estimated that the
manipulation of LIBOR cost investors $176B. (Keep in mind this is an estimate coming from a financial firm, so it would be prudent
to assume it's on the low end.)
Andrew Lo, a finance professor at MIT, said the fraud "dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of the
markets."
Food Stamps (SNAP) and Welfare (TANF)
I highly doubt any of my clients or readers are beneficiaries of the SNAP or "food stamps" program and are probably not very familiar
with it. While it is nominally a government program it has been corrupted by the big banks. Benefits are provided electronically
via debit cards (EBT cards). JP Morgan
has made over $500M
from 2004 to 2012 providing EBT benefits to 18 states. The banks then are free to reap fees from users for such things as cash
withdraws for TANF benefits, out of network ATM fees, lost card replacement fees, and even customer service calls.
I believe you can judge how profitable a service is to a company how much it spends on lobbying. In the case of JPMorgan, its
bribes, I mean campaign contributions to Agriculture Committee (SNAP is part of the Department of Agriculture) members increased
sharply after it entered the EBT market in 2004.
(Graphic source: GAI via data from CRP) Summary
A bloated and out-of-control financial sector does not add any value to society. Society benefits when the financial sector is
kept as small as possible.
The financial sector is a parasite that depends on its host organism, the productive sector of the economy, to fuel its profits.
The larger the financial sector grows, the more wealth it extracts from the productive sectors of the economy. With all due respect
to Matt Taibbi, Goldman Sachs isn't a vampire squid; the entire financial sector is the vampire squid with its tentacles reaching
into the pockets of citizens everywhere and sucking out money.
Quite a damning critique, and if I may step away from the main point I have to ask: why is it that some guys involved with
finance, Strubel as well as Auerback, Mosler and Ritholtz, talk like this while so many in the field do not? Does everyone involved
"know" all this but most simply choose to put on blinders?
Great Article about the .01% "Taker Class". This can all end by the 99% demanding a change to the TAX CODE! Yet another clear
indication of the manipulation of the "Giver Class" by government!
Its truly frightening to see how the public has been blindsided/mislead about the root causes of rapid income inequality. As
a social worker I am somwhat familiar with the SNAP benefit program Depressing to think JP Morgan Chase skimmed at least 500m
over an eight year period for SNAP and welfare benefits. I suppose this is the new age enclosure movement where Wall Street is
picking up public assets for pennies on the dollar and charging enormous rents..
The questions is.. what happens when it is used up?? A scorched wasteland of dysfunctional infrastruture/gated communites housing
a tiny elite protected from beggars, street criminals, and gang bandits??
Excellent article. Easy for a layperson to understand and covers a good portion of the pervasive, ongoing, worldwide financial
system theft. I worked for a stock brokerage firm years ago while studying for the series 7. Once I figured out they were all
just well-dressed telemarketers, I quit and found a more productive job. Remember 'dogs of the Dow' ?
A very well-written and eye-opening post – thanks, Ben. I think the formulation of this central point may be a little skewed,
though: " the smaller the financial sector is the more real wealth there is for the rest of society to enjoy. The bigger the financial
sector becomes the more money it siphons off from the productive sectors."
I think this formulation may be somewhat muddling the real-vs.-financial dichotomy that MMT revolves around. Sort of by definition,
the financial sector is 100 percent nominal – even when it posits ownership of real assets, it is really just money-valuing them,
applying the unit-of-account property of money. The ownership is an abstraction. The owner of a share of stock or a gold ETF has
no concrete interaction with the company or commodity in question. So, contrasting the total size of the financial sector to the
totality of real wealth available – for those members of society who do *not* receive income from the financial sector – leaves
me scratching my head. I'm not clear what is being measured. I know that profits flowing to the financial sector have exploded
from around two percent of total corporate profits in the 1950s to around forty percent now. This means it is over-charging for
its so-called services, but I think the real-economy effects are non-linear, and more complex than this.
Regarding the financial sector's growing tendency to siphon off money from the productive sectors – yes, they do this. But
it is up to the state, with its currency-issuing and taxing powers, to regulate how far this process goes and what happens next.
In a recent post, J.D. Alt took note of the ephemeral nature of the financial sector's nominal money-wealth. It is "fictitious
capital". Electronic poker chips. Just zeros and ones, really. As long as the plutocrats simply hoard them – use them to keep
score – the state can just replace them by increasing spending. I also tend to think that the consumption spending of the .01
percent is rather inelastic. They already have everything they want. Keynes' attitude was to let them live it up, up to a point,
and then tax the excess back when they die.
For me, the most important part of your post is the section on commodity speculation and infrastructure privatization. This
truly is a huge deal, a clear interaction with the real economy and a terrible crime, actually. Again, though, it is up to the
state to permit these outrages or ban them – we used to ban them but we stopped. So. One more big thank-you to the Big Dog, I
guess. To think – before Clinton, America actually based aid to poor children on their ages and their poverty rather than the
supposed moral imperfections of their parents. We even had no-fee food stamps.
Obviously, the other reason we can't just let the one percent play their casino games is that they eventually blow up the real
economy, as a totality, through financial crises and destabilization. And, due to all the fabulist monetary propaganda out there,
there is now a big reservoir of public opinion and political will *in favor* of financial collapse. The libertarians and other
Paul-Partiers think it would do us all good. And bring back the gold standard. And "End the Fed", and all the rest of that good
19th Century stuff. I'm not a ready-for-Hillary kind of guy in general, but is it possible to imagine a scarier idea than President
Rand?
While most of your specific criticisms are quite valid, I think your brush is a bit too broad. "The problem is that the financial,
insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sectors do not actually produce any goods or services. "
This is obviously false. I have many times used services provided by banks, credit unions, insurance companies, and real estate
brokers and agents. It would be practically impossible to find the right house to buy, to sell it for a fair price, to get the
loan necessary to buy it, or to protect myself and my family from a catastrophic loss without their services.
It is undoubtedly true that most of the volatility of the FIRE sector since 1990 is due to speculation and parasitical activities,
but there is undoubtedly also some growth of useful services that has facilitated growth of the other sectors, not detracted from
it. Thus it is not always true that "the smaller the financial sector is the more real wealth there is for the rest of society
to enjoy".
Bottom line, you have a good point. Excessively broad statements might be more dramatic, but if they are not true they don't
help your cause.
I have gotten real value from real estate brokers. Did you ever try to sell a house without one? Qualify the serious buyers
and deal with the lookie-loos? And the government paperwork!! I've always gotten my money's worth.
No, the fire doesn't care if you have insurance, but the insurance company will advise you on how to prevent fires and minimize
the damage. Paying an insurance company has protected me from paying the unaffordable high cost of the insured risks. The service
provided by insurance is not incident prevention, it is management of financial risk, and it does that very well. My claims have
been handled quickly and fairly. I had one unusual case where I thought the insurance company should have paid me more than their
original offer (the nation-wide blue book value of the car didn't reflect the unique situation in my State), and after discussion
they agreed with me and paid. I've been with them for over 40 years and I'm very happy with their services.
If you want your bank to create wealth for you, you're looking in the wrong place. Banks are good for storing and protecting
your money, and many will do that for you without fees, and even pay you interest. They'll let you use their computers to pay
your creditors, also without charge. They'll even give you short-term interest-free loans, and pay you cash rebates, if you use
their credit cards. I like my banks' services, too. And, of course, if you want to borrow money they will lend it to you and if
your payment is late they don't break your legs. They will make a profit, though. That's why they do it. You don't have to participate
if you don't want to.
Not every bank is Goldman Sachs, and not every insurance company is AIG. Those are good examples of companies that often serve
no useful purpose, but there are many others who do provide useful services at a reasonable cost.
Although I can be sympathetic of the no-value creation thesis in the financial industry, comparing the performance of hedge
funds with the recent performance of bonds is a no big no-no, because it assumes a negative correlation between equities and bonds.
If one look at the world markets in the last 100 years, that has been the exception rather than the rule.
And you forgot to mention the important roles of capital markets in deploying capital and financing companies through IPOs,
bond offers, etc.
You missed another big point, negative real interest rates. The Fed Funds Rate is currently 0%-0.25%, while real inflation
is much higher. (The CPI is not an accurate measure of inflation.) Big banks can profit by borrowing at 0% and buying stuff (bonds,
stocks, commodities, real estate, politicians, whatever).
On LIBOR, here's another interesting bit. Cities and states lost a TON of money on interest rate swaps with banks. What was
sold as a "hedge" wound up blowing up and costing a fortune.
This was a fascinating piece, very readable for those of us with minimal financial education. However, since this is such a
good explainer for the layman, I think it would be very beneficial to explain how big a difference 1% in fees makes for an investor
over a lifetime. I know personally when I used to compare funds the difference between 1 and 2% in fees seemed negligible. But
then I saw that fantastic PBS Frontline
on this topic and saw how much that 1% could cost me over a lifetime! I now have everything that I personally manage in index
funds!
You can't really argue with what has been said, and all (of us) involved in the sector know it is massive rip off.
While a free market advocate, I think a first step would be to introduce meaningful fee caps on all state promoted or mandated
saving arrangements (eg ISAS, and Pensions), on the grounds that the market is skewed by the government intervention that creates
the glut of forced buyers, and so to correct that imbalance the market (i.e. consumers) need protection through fee caps. I'd
say no more than 20 – 25bps should be permitted for all ISAS and pension savings (DC or DB). Individual wealthy investors (investments
of more than say Ł5m?) can pay what they like.
>>The job of the finance sector is simply to manage existing resources. It creates nothing.
This is a dubious assertion, but you clearly believe it. How then, can you in good conscience, charge 1.25% (plus indirect
costs for the funds you hold in client portfolios) to manage people's money when you yourself admit you are adding no value?
I know this was for Ben, but there's a pretty simple answer to that question: They don't charge 1.25% because they create value,
they're charging a fee to access the profit created by companies they invest in. Say I told you that I knew a guy named Jimmy
who was going to make three bucks for every buck he gets, and I asked if you'd lend me a dollar to give to Jimmy with the promise
that he'd give me 1.50 cents of it. I'd want to keep 25 cents but you can have 1.25, and so you agree. I didn't create the 2 extra
dollars of value -- Jimmy did -- but I feel justified in asking for a cut because I gave you the tip about Jimmy's value creation
ability.
At least, that is my understanding of Ben's statement.
There are 6000 publicly traded companies. Some of them will have rising stock prices, some falling. If a money manager can
steer you to the rising ones, he is doing something of value. It doesn't mean he created anything physical that didn't exist before.
He's doing a service for you that would otherwise have taken you some time and effort to do, and that's what you pay for.
Yes, it's a different definition of value. The growth of financial services has been outpacing the growth of other sectors
to a monstrous scale, and that makes this distinction important. It signals a kind of corruption that can only mean high inflation
and decoupling money from economic output.
I don't follow. How is financial services different from any other kind of services, in the impact on inflation? Why not also
actors, barbers, or any other service profession? The growth of the financial sector might be explained by the fact that it is
the industry most able to exploit computers, and the first to do so on a large scale.
The corruption is, I think, a separate issue that is present whenever other people's money is involved. Financial services
and government are simply more involved that way than most other industries, and have been all along, dating to long before the
recent growth. Corruption is not impossible in any industry, just more attractive when the numbers are larger.
Corruption is never a separate in ANY corporate activity. The TAX CODE treats the wealth of the .01% radically different than
Income from Labor, because all Taxes on Capital Gains are deferred until taken and are not TAXED as ordinary income. The TAX CODE
is responsible for the corruption of our government because it has put real POWER, the Power of Wealth in the hands of the .01%,
to buy whatever it wants, while labor and the poor spend everything they earn or are given , every single year to survive in a
economic culture designed for the benefit of the .01%, something no one will write about!
Change the TAX CODE and the Corruption of Society will end!
Barbers and actors being paid for their labor do not have the same impact on inflation as a bank giving out loans and consumer
credit at interest. It's not equivalent at all.
Corruption in financial industries is what this article is discussing. If it's a separate issue, I'm confused as to the point
of talking about this at all!
I don't think your explanation is correct. Why wouldn't I go directly to Jimmy in that case and cut out the middle man since
he is offering no value add? The fact is, the middle man, Ben, in this case, believes that he can identify superior companies
to invest his clients money in and earn a greater return. This is Ben's value add and why he charges 1.25%.
Golfer John is correct and that point, essentially, blows a hole in Ben's thesis here that the financial sector adds no value
because they only manage "existing resources". Steering capital to the good ideas that improve consumer wealth and generate a
return is a value add and the fact that millions of transactions like this happen voluntarily between consenting adults further
supports this.
Physics tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so the same resources that are on this earth today are the same
ones that were here 10,000 years ago. So, in that sense, Apple is simply managing "existing resources" when they build the iphone,
Toyota simply managing "existing resources" when they build a car, and UPS and US Mail are merely moving "existing resources"
from one location to another when they make deliveries, must be no value add there right?
Asserting that the financial sector only manages existing resources, and then citing that as proof of no value add is simply
a non sequiter.
No, I wasn't, though I have heard that. My theory of markets, and human group behavior in general, is a statistical approach.
There are averages, distributions, and temporary equilibriums, but the interesting parts are the outliers. I guess that is more
of a quantum flavor than Newtonian. Over time, economies behave cyclically. Much of nature and human group behavior is cyclical.
Paul -- That's true, and a good analogy, except you're getting a bit reductive with the term "existing resources". I agree
that "no value" is a bit extreme, which is why I became more interested in the -type- of value.
John – My physics is flawed to the extent that the law of conservation of matter is flawed, this I admit. I am much more economist
than physicist though so better that I get my physics wrong and econ right! I see a lot of similarities between the two, as well
as crucial differences, but I don't want to get too off topic.
Briana – "No Value is a bit extreme"
I agree, and as the absurdly hyperbolic title* of this article states, the author takes it to an even greater extreme – namely
that the financial sector is actually a systematic destroyer of value (parasite) that is created by all of the other industries.
The crux of his assertion rests on that they only "manage existing resources" and also calling Greg Mankiw an apologist, neither
strikes me as an intellectually rigorous argument.
And interestingly, on his own firm's website, the author apparently contradicts the thesis of this article when advertising
his financial services and the fees he charges for his own value add. I can think of several explanations for this, none of which
are particularly flattering, others can draw their own conclusions.
*a worse parasite than all of the murderous dictatorial regimes in human history that have institutionalized the slaughter
and torture of millions? Really? I note this because it is so obviously false that it makes the rest of the content seem unserious
and shallow even if valid points exist. Acidic comments tend to preach to the already converted, but perhaps that is the goal
here.
Yeah, ok. I should know better, Paul. My brain tried to rationalize the argument by making it less extreme. The goal probably
was to mobilize the choir to go Occupy Wall Street for a few more months, haha.
Those valid points shouldn't be ignored because of the poorly handled hyperbole, though. The financial sector does have a great
capacity to act as a parasite by overvaluing their services and squandering wealth generated by other industries instead of reinvesting
it in worthwhile, valuable enterprises; or using that wealth to essentially 'gamble' or invent money that is not attached to any
real value (i.e. shorting or credit default swaps). As the fruits of these behaviors are becoming obvious, it gets harder to justify
policies that allow them to happen.
In many ways that is my point. You found those "valid points" obviously correct before reading the article, so it rang true
despite the extreme hyperbole. I did not find those points self-evidently true so this poorly constructed argument relying on
clearly false assumptions struck me as uncompelling.
For example, how does one "overvalue their services"? If one charges too much, no one is forced to buy. I may find Ben's management
fee of 1.25% to be overvaluing himself, but I have the option of not paying and instead going to less expensive alternatives.
Why wouldn't the financial industry invest in "worthwhile valuable enterprises" if they provide a worthwhile return? After
all, aren't they driven by an insatiable desire for profit? Who determines what enterprises are worthwhile?
I do not see anything inherently wrong with short selling. Indeed, the ability to short a stock is simply expressing a view
about its value, and leads to greater and more accurate price discovery. What is wrong with shorting a stock if one believes it
is overpriced relative to its instrinsic value? Is it not preferable that prices reflect underlying economic fundamentals rather
than being disconnected from such? Shorting puts downward pressure on prices, and helps prevent overvaluation.
Credit Default Swaps are nothing more than insurance against a bond default. There is nothing inherently wrong with insurance.
I'm not suggesting that you, here in the comments, need to write a paper elaborating on those, just that this article did a
poor job of pursuading, though again, I am coming to the realization that I am likely not the intended audience.
This discussion in the comments has actually been more fruitful than the article itself.
(Sorry for the late response, I've been away for a few days.)
"For example, how does one "overvalue their services"?"
This argument hinges on everyone that purchases these services knowing their true value. It's very simplistic to say that if
someone purchases it, that is the real value. It gets complicated when you take into account the psychological pressures of purchasing
behavior, such as "middle-price" preferences, "money you don't see is money you don't miss" and other tricks that are employed
to get people to pay higher prices.
"Why wouldn't the financial industry invest in "worthwhile valuable enterprises" if they provide a worthwhile return? After
all, aren't they driven by an insatiable desire for profit? Who determines what enterprises are worthwhile?"
Countless services and products we rely on were funded by taxes to make them profitable. They are "worthwhile" but apparently
not "profitable" enough to invest in. Making money and creating value aren't the same thing. Ideally, everyone decides what is
worthwhile.
"I do not see anything inherently wrong with short selling."
Shorting is basically a bucket shop in disguise.
"Credit Default Swaps are nothing more than insurance against a bond default. There is nothing inherently wrong with insurance."
"This argument hinges on everyone that purchases these services knowing their true value."
In a literal sense, you are correct, it is an imperfect measure of value. However, I think it is far and away the most reliable
one we have as value is extremely subjective. I don't think it is right or prudent for third, non cost bearing parties to preempt
decisions made by consenting adults, rather, I would accord them the dignity of free choice. There are many things that consumers
purchase that I do not understand, why anyone would pay a premium for a fast car seems like a waste of money to me, for example.
Why anyone would pay money to golf, not to mention the huge cost in terms of time it takes to get through 18 holes, seems like
a waste of money to me. These are things that make no sense to me because I do not see the value there. But, I recognize that
people have various tastes and preferences, and I respect that and presume that individuals know themselves and their own tastes
and preferences better than I (or someone else) does. Therefore, when someone values something that I do not understand, I tend
to believe it is a result of a difference in preference, rather than they are too dumb to figure out what they like, or that they
are "tricked" into buying something and hence need protection delivered by those who fancy themselves as enlightened enough to
see the real truth. Nothing about this is unique to the financial industry, by the way.
"Countless services and products we rely on were funded by taxes to make them profitable. They are "worthwhile" but apparently
not "profitable" enough to invest in. Making money and creating value aren't the same thing. Ideally, everyone decides what is
worthwhile."
Apparently not enough people decided these services and products were worthwhile, so politicians decided they were worthwhile
and used the force and power of government to get them done. Substituting preferences of politicians, spending other people's
money for those of millions of individuals spending their own money does not seem like an efficient way to allocate resources.
I agree with you on purchasing decisions. People should be free to determine value. I'm not saying people are always dumb,
but I do think they are manipulated. If you want to believe they are not, that is up to you, but apparently you've never seen
advertising. The financial industry advertises itself heavily, especially in consumer credit markets and insurance. But if we're
going to gauge something as nebulous as "true value", it requires a level of conscientiousness from everyone, and accepting whatever
people purchase as reflecting it's actual value is a quick way to guarantee abuse, especially when you have something like consumer
credit. If people are free to determine value, they should also be held to the consequences of their choices, which is currently
not the case in the financial industry and increasingly in the general population.
"Apparently not enough people decided these services and products were worthwhile, so politicians decided they were worthwhile
and used the force and power of government to get them done. Substituting preferences of politicians, spending other people's
money for those of millions of individuals spending their own money does not seem like an efficient way to allocate resources."
You mean like electricity, phone services, railroads, airlines, fortified wheat, water treatment, the internet, satellites,
healthcare.. the list could go on and on. It is less efficient (a word that really needs to be defined clearly, but I'll assume
I know what you mean!), and it happens because otherwise it wouldn't be possible, and yet it becomes widely adopted and lauded
none-the-less; progress, they say. Like I said, worthwhile and profitable are not 1-to-1 correlation, just as willingness to purchase
doesn't necessarily indicate true value.
I thought you might have some interesting opinion on the CDS as money creation I'm still trying to figure that one out!
"... Bankers, pharmaceutical giants, Google, Facebook ... a new breed of rentiers are at the very top of the pyramid and they're sucking the rest of us dry @rcbregman ..."
"... 'A big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body' ..."
"... This piece is about one of the biggest taboos of our times. About a truth that is seldom acknowledged, and yet – on reflection – cannot be denied. The truth that we are living in an inverse welfare state. These days, politicians from the left to the right assume that most wealth is created at the top. By the visionaries, by the job creators, and by the people who have "made it". By the go-getters oozing talent and entrepreneurialism that are helping to advance the whole world. ..."
"... To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our "human capital" in economic terms) to create something new, whether that's a takeout app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth. ..."
"... But there is also a second way to make money. That's the rentier way : by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others' expense, using his power to claim economic benefit. ..."
"... For those who know their history, the term "rentier" conjures associations with heirs to estates, such as the 19th century's large class of useless rentiers, well-described by the French economist Thomas Piketty . These days, that class is making a comeback. (Ironically, however, conservative politicians adamantly defend the rentier's right to lounge around, deeming inheritance tax to be the height of unfairness.) But there are also other ways of rent-seeking. From Wall Street to Silicon Valley , from big pharma to the lobby machines in Washington and Westminster, zoom in and you'll see rentiers everywhere. ..."
"... It may take quite a mental leap to see our economy as a system that shows solidarity with the rich rather than the poor. So I'll start with the clearest illustration of modern freeloaders at the top: bankers. Studies conducted by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements – not exactly leftist thinktanks – have revealed that much of the financial sector has become downright parasitic. How instead of creating wealth, they gobble it up whole. ..."
"... In other words, a big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body. It's not creating anything new, merely sucking others dry. Bankers have found a hundred and one ways to accomplish this. The basic mechanism, however, is always the same: offer loans like it's going out of style, which in turn inflates the price of things like houses and shares, then earn a tidy percentage off those overblown prices (in the form of interest, commissions, brokerage fees, or what have you), and if the shit hits the fan, let Uncle Sam mop it up. ..."
"... Bankers are the most obvious class of closet freeloaders, but they are certainly not alone. Many a lawyer and an accountant wields a similar revenue model. Take tax evasion . Untold hardworking, academically degreed professionals make a good living at the expense of the populations of other countries. Or take the tide of privatisations over the past three decades, which have been all but a carte blanche for rentiers. One of the richest people in the world, Carlos Slim , earned his millions by obtaining a monopoly of the Mexican telecom market and then hiking prices sky high. The same goes for the Russian oligarchs who rose after the Berlin Wall fell , who bought up valuable state-owned assets for song to live off the rent. ..."
"... Even paragons of modern progress like Apple, Amazon, Google , Facebook, Uber and Airbnb are woven from the fabric of rentierism. Firstly, because they owe their existence to government discoveries and inventions (every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll). And second, because they tie themselves into knots to avoid paying taxes, retaining countless bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists for this very purpose. ..."
"... Even more important, many of these companies function as "natural monopolies", operating in a positive feedback loop of increasing growth and value as more and more people contribute free content to their platforms. Companies like this are incredibly difficult to compete with, because as they grow bigger, they only get stronger. ..."
"... Most of Mark Zuckerberg's income is just rent collected off the millions of picture and video posts that we give away daily for free. And sure, we have fun doing it. But we also have no alternative – after all, everybody is on Facebook these days. Zuckerberg has a website that advertisers are clamouring to get onto, and that doesn't come cheap. Don't be fooled by endearing pilots with free internet in Zambia. Stripped down to essentials, it's an ordinary ad agency. In fact, in 2015 Google and Facebook pocketed an astounding 64% of all online ad revenue in the US. ..."
"... Rentierism is, in essence, a question of power. That the Sun King Louis XIV was able to exploit millions was purely because he had the biggest army in Europe. It's no different for the modern rentier. He's got the law, politicians and journalists squarely in his court. That's why bankers get fined peanuts for preposterous fraud, while a mother on government assistance gets penalised within an inch of her life if she checks the wrong box. ..."
"... The biggest tragedy of all, however, is that the rentier economy is gobbling up society's best and brightest. Where once upon a time Ivy League graduates chose careers in science, public service or education, these days they are more likely to opt for banks, law firms, or trumped up ad agencies like Google and Facebook. When you think about it, it's insane. We are forking over billions in taxes to help our brightest minds on and up the corporate ladder so they can learn how to score ever more outrageous handouts. ..."
"... One thing is certain: countries where rentiers gain the upper hand gradually fall into decline. Just look at the Roman Empire. Or Venice in the 15th century. Look at the Dutch Republic in the 18th century. Like a parasite stunts a child's growth, so the rentier drains a country of its vitality. ..."
Bankers, pharmaceutical giants, Google, Facebook ... a new breed of rentiers are at the very top of the pyramid and they're
sucking the rest of us dry @rcbregman
'A big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body'.
This piece is about one of the biggest taboos of our times. About a truth that is seldom acknowledged, and yet – on reflection
– cannot be denied. The truth that we are living in an inverse welfare state. These days, politicians from the left to the right assume that most wealth is created at the top. By the visionaries, by the job
creators, and by the people who have "made it". By the go-getters oozing talent and entrepreneurialism that are helping to advance
the whole world.
Now, we may disagree about the extent to which success deserves to be rewarded – the philosophy of the left is that the strongest
shoulders should bear the heaviest burden, while the right fears high taxes will blunt enterprise – but across the spectrum virtually
all agree that wealth is created primarily at the top.
So entrenched is this assumption that it's even embedded in our language. When economists talk about "productivity", what they
really mean is the size of your paycheck. And when we use terms like "
welfare
state ", "redistribution" and "solidarity", we're implicitly subscribing to the view that there are two strata: the makers and
the takers, the producers and the couch potatoes, the hardworking citizens – and everybody else.
In reality, it is precisely the other way around. In reality, it is the waste collectors, the nurses, and the cleaners whose shoulders
are supporting the apex of the pyramid. They are the true mechanism of social solidarity. Meanwhile, a growing share of those we
hail as "successful" and "innovative" are earning their wealth at the expense of others. The people getting the biggest handouts
are not down around the bottom, but at the very top. Yet their perilous dependence on others goes unseen. Almost no one talks about
it. Even for politicians on the left, it's a non-issue.
To understand why, we need to recognise that there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means
tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our "human capital" in economic terms) to create something new, whether that's a takeout
app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth.
But there is also a second way to make money.
That's the rentier way : by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase
your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others' expense, using his
power to claim economic benefit.
'From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, zoom in and you'll see rentiers everywhere.'
For those who know their history, the term "rentier" conjures associations with heirs to estates, such as the 19th century's large
class of useless rentiers, well-described by the
French economist
Thomas Piketty . These days, that class is making a comeback. (Ironically, however, conservative politicians adamantly defend
the rentier's right to lounge around, deeming inheritance tax to be the height of unfairness.) But there are also other ways of rent-seeking.
From Wall Street to Silicon Valley , from big
pharma to the lobby machines in Washington and Westminster, zoom in and you'll see rentiers everywhere.
There is no longer a sharp dividing line between working and rentiering. In fact, the modern-day rentier often works damn hard.
Countless people in the financial sector, for example, apply great ingenuity and effort to amass "rent" on their wealth. Even the
big innovations of our age – businesses like Facebook
and Uber – are interested mainly in expanding the rentier economy. The problem with most rich people therefore is not that they are
coach potatoes. Many a CEO toils 80 hours a week to multiply his allowance. It's hardly surprising, then, that they feel wholly entitled
to their wealth.
It may take quite a mental leap to see our economy as a system that shows solidarity with the rich rather than the poor. So I'll
start with the clearest illustration of modern freeloaders at the top: bankers. Studies conducted by the
International Monetary Fund and the
Bank for International Settlements – not exactly leftist
thinktanks – have revealed that much of the financial sector has become downright parasitic. How instead of creating wealth, they
gobble it up whole.
In other words, a big part of the modern banking sector is essentially a giant tapeworm gorging on a sick body. It's not creating
anything new, merely sucking others dry. Bankers have found a hundred and one ways to accomplish this. The basic mechanism, however,
is always the same: offer loans like it's going out of style, which in turn inflates the price of things like houses and shares,
then earn a tidy percentage off those overblown prices (in the form of interest, commissions, brokerage fees, or what have you),
and if the shit hits the fan, let Uncle Sam mop it up.
The financial innovation concocted by all the math whizzes working in modern banking (instead of at universities or companies
that contribute to real prosperity) basically boils down to maximizing the total amount of debt. And debt, of course, is a means
of earning rent. So for those who believe that pay ought to be proportionate to the value of work, the conclusion we have to draw
is that many bankers should be earning a negative salary; a fine, if you will, for destroying more wealth than they create.
Bankers are the most obvious class of closet freeloaders, but they are certainly not alone. Many a lawyer and an accountant wields
a similar revenue model.
Take
tax evasion . Untold hardworking, academically degreed professionals make a good living at the expense of the populations of
other countries. Or take the tide of privatisations over the past three decades, which have been all but a carte blanche for rentiers.
One of the richest people in the world,
Carlos Slim , earned his millions by obtaining a monopoly of the Mexican telecom market and then hiking prices sky high. The
same goes for the Russian oligarchs who rose after the
Berlin Wall fell , who bought up valuable state-owned assets for song to live off the rent.
But here comes the rub. Most rentiers are not as easily identified as the greedy banker or manager. Many are disguised. On the
face of it, they look like industrious folks, because for part of the time they really are doing something worthwhile. Precisely
that makes us overlook their massive rent-seeking.
Take the pharmaceutical industry. Companies like
GlaxoSmithKline and
Pfizer regularly
unveil new drugs, yet most real medical breakthroughs are made quietly at government-subsidised labs. Private companies mostly manufacture
medications that resemble what we've already got. They get it patented and, with a hefty dose of marketing, a legion of lawyers,
and a strong lobby, can live off the profits for years. In other words, the vast revenues of the pharmaceutical industry are the
result of a tiny pinch of innovation and fistfuls of rent.
Even paragons of modern progress like Apple, Amazon, Google
, Facebook, Uber and Airbnb are woven from the fabric of rentierism. Firstly, because they owe their existence to government discoveries
and inventions (every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice
recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll). And second, because they tie themselves into knots to avoid
paying taxes, retaining countless bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists for this very purpose.
Even more important, many of these companies function as "natural monopolies", operating in a positive feedback loop of increasing
growth and value as more and more people contribute free content to their platforms. Companies like this are incredibly difficult
to compete with, because as they grow bigger, they only get stronger.
Aptly characterising this "platform capitalism" in an article,
Tom Goodwin writes : "Uber, the world's largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world's most popular media owner,
creates no content. Alibaba, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world's largest accommodation provider,
owns no real estate."
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest 'Every sliver of fundamental technology in the iPhone, from the internet to batteries and from touchscreens to voice
recognition, was invented by researchers on the government payroll.' Photograph: Regis Duvignau/Reuters
So what do these companies own? A platform. A platform that lots and lots of people want to use. Why? First and foremost, because
they're cool and they're fun – and in that respect, they do offer something of value. However, the main reason why we're all happy
to hand over free content to Facebook is because all of our friends are on Facebook too, because their friends are on Facebook because
their friends are on Facebook.
Most of Mark Zuckerberg's income is just rent collected off the millions of picture and video posts that we give away daily for
free. And sure, we have fun doing it. But we also have no alternative – after all, everybody is on Facebook these days. Zuckerberg
has a website that advertisers are clamouring to get onto, and that doesn't come cheap. Don't be fooled by endearing pilots with
free internet in Zambia. Stripped down to essentials, it's an ordinary ad agency. In fact, in 2015 Google and Facebook pocketed an
astounding
64% of all online ad revenue in the US.
But don't Google and Facebook make anything useful at all? Sure they do. The irony, however, is that their best innovations only
make the rentier economy even bigger. They employ scores of programmers to create new algorithms so that we'll all click on more
and more ads.
Uber has
usurped the whole taxi sector just as
Airbnb has upended the hotel industry and Amazon has overrun the book trade. The bigger such platforms grow the more powerful
they become, enabling the lords of these digital feudalities to demand more and more rent.
Think back a minute to the definition of a rentier: someone who uses their control over something that already exists in order
to increase their own wealth. The feudal lord of medieval times did that by building a tollgate along a road and making everybody
who passed by pay. Today's tech giants are doing basically the same thing, but transposed to the digital highway. Using technology
funded by taxpayers, they build tollgates between you and other people's free content and all the while pay almost no tax on their
earnings.
This is the so-called innovation that has Silicon Valley gurus in raptures: ever bigger platforms that claim ever bigger handouts.
So why do we accept this? Why does most of the population work itself to the bone to support these rentiers?
I think there are two answers. Firstly, the modern rentier knows to keep a low profile. There was a time when everybody knew who
was freeloading. The king, the church, and the aristocrats controlled almost all the land and made peasants pay dearly to farm it.
But in the modern economy, making rentierism work is a great deal more complicated. How many people can explain a
credit default swap
, or a collateralised debt obligation ? Or the revenue
model behind those cute Google Doodles? And don't the folks on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley work themselves to the bone, too?
Well then, they must be doing something useful, right?
Maybe not. The typical workday of Goldman Sachs' CEO may be worlds away from that of King Louis XIV, but their revenue models
both essentially revolve around obtaining the biggest possible handouts. "The world's most powerful investment bank," wrote the journalist
Matt Taibbi about
Goldman Sachs , "is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything
that smells like money."
But far from squids and vampires, the average rich freeloader manages to masquerade quite successfully as a decent hard worker.
He goes to great lengths to present himself as a "job creator" and an "investor" who "earns" his income by virtue of his high "productivity".
Most economists, journalists, and politicians from left to right are quite happy to swallow this story. Time and again language is
twisted around to cloak funneling and exploitation as creation and generation.
However, it would be wrong to think that all this is part of some ingenious conspiracy. Many modern rentiers have convinced even
themselves that they are bona fide value creators. When current Goldman Sachs CEO
Lloyd Blankfein
was asked about the purpose of his job, his straight-faced answer was that he is "
doing God's
work ". The Sun King would have approved.
The second thing that keeps rentiers safe is even more insidious. We're all wannabe rentiers. They have made millions of people
complicit in their revenue model. Consider this: What are our financial sector's two biggest cash cows? Answer: the housing market
and pensions. Both are markets in which many of us are deeply invested.
Recent decades have seen more and more people contract debts to buy a home, and naturally it's in their interest if
house
prices continue to scale new heights (read: burst bubble upon bubble). The same goes for pensions. Over the past few decades
we've all scrimped and saved up a mountainous pension piggy bank. Now pension funds are under immense pressure to ally with the biggest
exploiters in order to ensure they pay out enough to please their investors.
The fact of the matter is that feudalism has been democratised. To a lesser or greater extent, we are all depending on handouts.
En masse, we have been made complicit in this exploitation by the rentier elite, resulting in a political covenant between the rich
rent-seekers and the homeowners and retirees.
Don't get me wrong, most homeowners and retirees are not benefiting from this situation. On the contrary, the banks are bleeding
them far beyond the extent to which they themselves profit from their houses and pensions. Still, it's hard to point fingers at a
kleptomaniac when you have sticky fingers too.
So why is this happening? The answer can be summed up in three little words: Because it can.
Rentierism is, in essence, a question of power. That the Sun King Louis XIV was able to exploit millions was purely because he
had the biggest army in Europe. It's no different for the modern rentier. He's got the law, politicians and journalists squarely
in his court. That's why bankers get fined peanuts for preposterous fraud, while a mother on government assistance gets penalised
within an inch of her life if she checks the wrong box.
The biggest tragedy of all, however, is that the rentier economy is gobbling up society's best and brightest. Where once upon
a time Ivy League graduates chose careers in science, public service or education, these days they are more likely to opt for banks,
law firms, or trumped up ad agencies like Google and Facebook. When you think about it, it's insane. We are forking over billions
in taxes to help our brightest minds on and up the corporate ladder so they can learn how to score ever more outrageous handouts.
One thing is certain: countries where rentiers gain the upper hand gradually fall into decline. Just look at the Roman Empire.
Or Venice in the 15th century. Look at the Dutch Republic in the 18th century. Like a parasite stunts a child's growth, so the rentier
drains a country of its vitality.
What innovation remains in a rentier economy is mostly just concerned with further bolstering that very same economy. This may
explain why the big dreams of the 1970s, like flying cars, curing cancer, and colonising Mars, have yet to be realised, while bankers
and ad-makers have at their fingertips technologies a thousand times more powerful.
Yet it doesn't have to be this way. Tollgates can be torn down, financial products can be banned, tax havens dismantled, lobbies
tamed, and patents rejected. Higher taxes on the ultra-rich can make rentierism less attractive, precisely because society's biggest
freeloaders are at the very top of the pyramid. And we can more fairly distribute our earnings on land, oil, and innovation through
a system of, say, employee shares, or a
universal basic
income .
But such a revolution will require a wholly different narrative about the origins of our wealth. It will require ditching the
old-fashioned faith in "solidarity" with a miserable underclass that deserves to be borne aloft on the market-level salaried shoulders
of society's strongest. All we need to do is to give real hard-working people what they deserve.
And, yes, by that I mean the waste collectors, the nurses, the cleaners – theirs are the shoulders that carry us all.
"... "The entire US economy today is about the quick buck." ..."
"... " When market tumbled in 2015 and 2016, global central banks embarked on the largest combined intervention effort in history giving us a grand total of over $15 trillion." ..."
Central banks are founded for one reason only: to save
[private] banks from bankruptcy, invariably at the cost of society at large. They'll bring down markets
and societies just to make sure banks don't go under. They'll also, and even, do that when
these banks have taken insane risks. It's a battle societies can't possibly win as long as
central banks can raise unlimited amounts of 'money' and shove it into private banks. Ergo:
societies can't survive the existence of a central bank that serves the interests of its
private banks.
For years critics of U.S. central-bank policy have been dismissed as Negative Nellies,
but the ugly truth is staring us in the face: Stock-market advances remain a game of
artificial liquidity and central-bank jawboning, not organic growth. And now the jig is up.
As I've been saying for a long time: There is zero evidence that markets can make or sustain
new highs without some sort of intervention on the side of central banks. None. Zero. Zilch.
And don't think this is hyperbole on my part. I will, of course, present evidence.
In March 2009 markets bottomed on the expansion of QE1 (quantitative easing, part one),
which was introduced following the initial announcement in November 2008. Every major
correction since then has been met with major central-bank interventions: QE2, Twist, QE3 and
so on. When market tumbled in 2015 and 2016, global central banks embarked on the largest
combined intervention effort in history. The sum: More than $5 trillion between 2016 and
2017, giving us a grand total of over $15 trillion, courtesy of the U.S. Federal Reserve, the
European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan:
When did global central-bank balance sheets peak? Early 2018. When did global markets
peak? January 2018. And don't think the Fed was not still active in the jawboning business
despite QE3 ending. After all, their official language remained "accommodative" and their
interest-rate increase schedule was the slowest in history, cautious and tinkering so as not
to upset the markets.
With tax cuts coming into the U.S. economy in early 2018, along with record buybacks,
the markets at first ignored the beginning of QT (quantitative tightening), but then it all
changed. And guess what changed? Two things. In September 2018, for the first time in 10
years, the U.S. central bank's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) removed one little word
from its policy stance: "accommodative." And the Fed increased its QT program. When did U.S.
markets peak? September 2018.
[..] don't mistake this rally for anything but for what it really is: Central banks
again coming to the rescue of stressed markets. Their action and words matter in heavily
oversold markets. But the reality remains, artificial liquidity is coming out of these
markets. [..] What's the larger message here? Free-market price discovery would require a
full accounting of market bubbles and the realities of structural problems, which remain
unresolved. Central banks exist to prevent the consequences of excess to come to fruition and
give license to politicians to avoid addressing structural problems.
is it $15 trillion, or is it 20, or 30? How much did China add to the total? And for what?
How much of it has been invested in productivity? I bet you it's not even 10%. The rest has
just been wasted on a facade of a functioning economy. Those facades tend to get terribly
expensive.
Western economies would have shrunk into negative GDP growth if not for the $15-20 trillion
their central banks injected over the past decade. And that is seen, or rather presented, as
something so terrible you got to do anything to prevent it from happening. As if it's
completely natural, and desirable, for an economy to grow forever.
It isn't and it won't happen, but keeping the illusion alive serves to allow the rich to put
their riches in a safe place, to increase inequality and to prepare those who need it least to
save most to ride out the storm they themselves are creating and deepening. And everyone else
can go stuff themselves.
And sure, perhaps a central bank could have some function that benefits society. It's just
that none of them ever do, do they? Central banks benefit private banks, and since the latter
have for some braindead reason been gifted with the power to issue our money, while we could
have just as well done that ourselves, the circle is round and we ain't in it.
No, the Fed doesn't hide the ugly truth. The Fed is that ugly truth. And if we don't get rid
of it, it will get a lot uglier still before the entire edifice falls to pieces. This is not
complicated stuff, that's just what you're made to believe. Nobody needs the Fed who doesn't
want to pervert markets and society, it is that simple.
The word your looking for "abyss"
definition --
a catastrophic situation seen as likely to occur to the people with wealth that is built
upon "leverage."
Leverage results from using borrowed capital as a funding source when investing to expand
the firm's asset base and generate returns on risk capital. Leverage is an investment
strategy of using borrowed money -- specifically, the use of various financial instruments
or borrowed capital -- to increase the potential return of an investment. Leverage can also
refer to the amount of debt a firm uses to finance assets. When one refers to a company,
property or investment as "highly leveraged," it means that item has more debt than
equity.
"The entire US economy today is about the quick buck."
Even the stock market these days seems to be about the quick buck. In the US, the
average holding period for stocks has dropped from 8 years (1960), to 5 years (1970), to 2
years (1990), to 4 months (in the past few years).
The policies of the Fed (as well as the Board of Directors of the companies) are
evidently geared towards the short-term benefits of the owners who will be leaving in a few
months. The long-term health of the companies, the economy, and the overall society (mostly
non-owners) is evidently not so important to the Fed and the CEOs.
" When market tumbled in 2015 and 2016, global central banks embarked on the largest combined intervention effort
in history giving us a grand total of over $15 trillion."
Those $15 trillion in assets being held by the central banks propped the global stock market capitalization up to around
$75 trillion. Short term thinking that gives short-term benefits. Take away the props and of course that sucker is going to
fall.
What were they thinking, the overweight patient with all of those systemic problems is going to be able to walk just
fine when the crutches are taken away?
"... At least in nature, "smart" parasites may perform helpful functions, such as helping their host find food. But as the host weakens, the parasite lays eggs, which hatch and devour the host, killing it. That is what predatory finance is doing to today's economies. It's stripping assets, not permitting growth or even letting the economy replenish itself. ..."
"... MH: The financial sector is a rentier sector – external to the "real" economy of production and consumption, and therefore a form of overhead. As overhead, it should be a subtracted from GDP. ..."
"... In the name of saving "the market," the Fed and ECB therefore overruled the market. Today, over 80 percent of U.S. home mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Authority. Banks won't make loans without the government picking up the risk of non-payment. So bankers just pretend to be free market. That's for their victims. ..."
"... The "flight to security" is a move out of the stock and bond markets into government debt. Stocks and bonds may go down in price, some companies may go bankrupt, but national governments can always print the money to pay their bondholders. Investors are mainly concerned about keeping whatthey have – security of principal. They are willing to be paid less income in exchange for preserving what they have taken. ..."
"... But the way Wall Street administrators at the Treasury and Fed plan the crisis is for small savers to lose out to the large institutional investors. So the bottom line that I see is a slow crash. ..."
"... U.S. diplomats radically changed IMF lending rules as part of their economic sanctions imposed on Russia as result of the coup d'état by the Right Sector, Svoboda and their neo-Nazi allies in Kiev. The ease with which the U.S. changed these rules to support the military coup shows how the IMF is simply a tool of President Obama's New Cold War policy. ..."
"... The main financial innovation by Apple has been to set up a branch office in Ireland and pretend that the money it makes in the Untied States and elsewhere is made in Ireland – which has only a 15 percent income-tax rate ..."
"... It would seem to be an anomaly to borrow from banks and pay dividends. But that is the "cannibalism" stage of modern finance capitalism, U.S.-style. For the stock market as a whole, some 92 percent of earnings recently were used to pay dividends or for stock buybacks. ..."
Michael Hudson: The financial sector today is decoupled from industrialization. Its main
interface with industry is to provide credit to corporate raiders. Their objective isasset
stripping, They use earnings to repay financial backers (usually junk-bond holders), not to
increase production. The effect is to suck income from the company and from the economy to pay
financial elites.
These elites play the role today that landlords played under feudalism. They levy interest
and financial fees that are like a tax, to support what the classical economists called
"unproductive activity." That is what I mean by "parasitic."
If loans are not used to finance production and increase the economic surplus, then interest
has to be paid out of other income. It is what economists call a zero-sum activity. Such
interest is a "transfer payment," because it that does not play a directly productive function.
Credit may be a precondition for production to take place, but it is not a factor of
production as such.
The situation is most notorious in the international sphere, especially in loans to
governments that already are running trade and balance-of-payments deficits. Power tends to
pass into the hands of lenders, so they lose control – and become less democratic.
To return to my use of the word parasite, any exploitation or "free lunch" implies a host.
In this respect finance is a form of war, domestically as well as internationally.
At least in nature, "smart" parasites may perform helpful functions, such as helping their
host find food. But as the host weakens, the parasite lays eggs, which hatch and devour
the host, killing it. That is what predatory finance is doing to today's economies. It's
stripping assets, not permitting growth or even letting the economy replenish itself.
The most important aspect of parasitism that I emphasize is the need of parasites to control
the host's brain. In nature, a parasite first dulls the host's awareness that it is being
attacked. Then, the free luncher produces enzymes that control the host's brain and make it
think that it should protect the parasite – that the outsider is part of its own body,
even like a baby to be specially protected.
The financial sector does something similar by pretending to be part of the industrial
production-and-consumption economy. The National Income and Product Accounts treat the
interest, profits and other revenue that Wall Street extracts – along with that of the
rentier sectors it backs (real estate landlordship, natural resource extraction and
monopolies) – as if these activities add to Gross Domestic Product. The reality is that
they are a subtrahend, a transfer payment from the "real" economy to the Finance, Insurance and
Real Estate Sector. I therefore focus on this FIRE sector as the main form of economic overhead
that financialized economies have to carry.
What this means in the most general economic terms is that finance and property ownership
claims are not "factors of production." They are external to the production process. But they
extract income from the "real" economy.
They also extract property ownership. In the sphere of public infrastructure – roads,
bridges and so forth – finance is moving into the foreclosure phase. Creditors are trying
to privatize what remains in the public domains of debtor economies. Buyers of these assets
– usually on credit – build interest and high monopoly rents into the prices they
charge.
JR: What is your vision for the next few decades of the global economy?
MH: The financial overhead has grown so large that paying interest, amortization and fees
shrinks the economy. So we are in for years of debt deflation. That means that people have to
pay so much debt service for mortgages, credit cards, student loans, bank loans and other
obligations that they have less to spend on
goods and services. So markets shrink. New investment and employment fall off, and the economy
is falls into a downward spiral.
My book therefore
devotes a chapter to describing how debt deflation works. The result is a slow crash. The
economy just gets poorer and poorer. More debtors default, and their property is transferred to
creditors. This happens not only with homeowners who fall into arrears, but also corporations
and even governments. Ireland and Greece are examples of the kind of future in store for
us.
Financialized economies tend to polarize between creditors and debtors. This is the dynamic
that Thomas Piketty leaves out of his book, but his statistics show that all growth in income
and nearly all growth in wealth or net worth has accrued to the One Percent, almost nothing for
the 99 Percent.
Basically, you can think of the economy as the One Percent getting the 99 Percent
increasingly into debt, and siphoning off as interest payments and other financial charges
whatever labor or business earns. The more a family earns, for instance, the more it can borrow
to buy a nicer home in a better neighborhood – on mortgage. The rising price of housing
ends up being paid to the bank – and over the course of a 30-year mortgage, the banker
receives more in interest than the seller gets.
Economic polarization is also occurring between creditor and debtor nations. This
issplitting the eurozone between Germany, France and the Netherlands in the creditor camp,
against Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy (the PIIGS) falling deeper into debt,
unemployment and austerity – followed by emigration and capital flight.
This domestic and international polarization will continue until there is a political fight
to resist the creditors. Debtors will seek to cancel their debts. Creditors will try to
collect, and the more they succeed, the more they will impoverish the economy.
Background
JR: Let's talk about your history, why did you become an economist?
MH: I started out wanting to be a musician – a composer and conductor. I wasn't very
good at either, but I was a very good interpreter, thanks to working with Oswald Jonas in
Chicago studying the musical theories of Heinrich Schenker. I got my sense of aesthetics from
music theory, and also the idea of modulation from one key to another. It is dissonance that
drives music forward, to resolve in a higher key or overtone.
When I was introduced to economics by the father of a schoolmate, I found it as aesthetic as
music, in the sense of a self-transforming dynamic through history by challenge and response or
resolution. I went to work for banks on Wall Street, and was fortunate enough to learn about
how central mortgage lending and real estate were for the economy. Then, I became Chase
Manhattan's balance-of-payments economist in 1964, and got entranced with tracing how the
surplus was buried in the statistics – who got it, and what they used it for. Mainly the
banks got it, and used it to make new loans.
I viewed the economy as modulating from one phase to the next. A good interpretation would
explain history. But the way the economy worked was nothing like what I was taught in school
getting my PhD in economics at New York University. So I must say, I enjoyed contrasting
reality with what I now call Junk Economics.
In mainstream textbooks there is no exploitation. Even fraudulent banks, landlords and
monopolists are reported as "earning" whatever they take – as if they are contributing to
GDP. So I found the economics discipline ripe for a revolution.
JR: What is the difference between how economics is taught vs. what you learned in your
job?
MH: For starters, when I studied economics in the 1960s there was still an emphasis on the
history of economic thought, and also on economic history. That's gone now.
One can easily see why. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and other classical economists sought
to free their societies from the legacy of feudalism: landlordism and predatory finance, as
well as from the monopolies that bondholders had demanded that governments create as a means of
paying their war debts.
Back in the 1960s, just like today, university courses did not give any training in actual
statistics. My work on Wall Street involved National Income and Product Accounts and the
balance-of-payments statisticspublished by the Commerce Department every three months, as well
as IMF andFederal Reserve statistics. Academic courses didn't even make reference to accounting
– so there was no conceptualization of "money," for instance, in terms of the liabilities
side of the balance sheet.
New York University's money and banking course was a travesty. It was about helicopters
dropping money down – to be spent on goods and services, increasing prices. There was no
understanding that the Federal Reserve's helicopter only flies over Wall Street, or that banks
create money on its own computers. It was not even recognized that banks lend to customers
mainly to buy real estate, or speculate in stocks and bonds, or raid companies.
Economics is taught like English literature. Teachers explain the principle of "suspension
of disbelief." Readers of novels are supposed to accept the author's characters and setting. In
economics, students are told to accept just-pretend parallel universe assumptions, and then
treat economic theory as a purely logical exercise, without any reference to the world.
The switch from fiction to reality occurs by taking the policy conclusions of these
unrealistic assumptions as if they do apply to the real world: austerity, trickle-down
economics shifting taxes off the wealthy, and treating government spending as "deadweight" even
when it is on infrastructure.
The most fictitious assumption is that Wall Street and the FIRE sector add to
output, rather than extracting revenue from the rest of the economy.
JR: What did you learn in your work on the US oil industry?
MH: For starters, I learned how the oil industry became tax-exempt. Not only by the
notorious depletion allowance, but by offshoring profits in "flags of convenience" countries, in
Liberia and Panama. These are not real countries. They do not have their own currency, but use
U.S. dollars. And they don't have an income tax.
The international oil companies sold crude oil at low prices from the Near East or Venezuela
to Panamanian or Liberian companies – telling the producing countries that oil was not
that profitable. These shipping affiliates owned tankers, and charged very high prices to
refineries and distributors in Europe or the Americas. The prices were so high that these
refineries and other "downstream" operations marketing gas to consumers did not show a profit
either. So they didn't have to pay European or U.S. taxes. Panama and Liberia had no income tax.
So the global revenue of the oil companies was tax-free.
I also learned the difference between a branch and an affiliate. Oil wells and oil fields
are treated as "branches," meaning that their statistics are consolidated with the head office
in the United States. This enabled the companies to take a depletion allowance for emptying out
oil fields abroad as well as in the United States.
My statistics showed that the average dollar invested by the U.S. oil industry was returned
to the United States via balance-of-payments flows in just 18 months. (This was not a profit
rate, but a balance-of-payments flow.) That finding helped the oil industry get exempted from
President Lyndon Johnson's "voluntary" balance-of-payments controls imposed in 1965 when the
Vietnam War accounted for the entire U.S. payments deficit. Gold was flowering out to France,
Germany and other countries running payments surpluses.
The balance-of-payments accounting format I designed for this study led me to go to work for
an accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, to look at the overall U.S. balance of payments. I found
that the entire deficit was military spending abroad, not foreign aid or trade.
Junk Economics
JR: Why do you think there is a disconnect between academic economic theory and the way
that international trade and finance really works?
MH: The aim of academic trade theory is to tell students, "Look at the model, not at how
nations actually develop." So of all the branches of economic theory, trade theory is the most
wrongheaded.
For lead nations, the objective of free trade theory is to persuade other countries not to
protect their own markets. That means not developing in the way that Britain did under its
mercantilist policies thatmade it the first home of the Industrial Revolution. It means not
protecting domestic industry, as the United States and Germany did in order to catch up with
British industry in the 19 th century and overtake it in theearly 20 th
century.
Trade theorists start with a conclusion: either free trade or (in times past) protectionism.
Free trade theory as expounded by Paul Samuelson and others starts by telling students to
assume a parallel universe – one that doesn't really exist. The conclusion they start
with is that free trade makes everyone's income distribution between capital and labor similar.
And because the world has a common price for raw materials and dollar credit, as well as for
machinery, the similar proportions turn out to mean equality. All the subsequent assumptions
are designed to lead to this unrealistic conclusion.
But if you start with the real world instead of academic assumptions, you see that the world
economy is polarizing. Academic trade theory can't explain this. In fact, it denies that
today's reality can be happening at all!
A major reason why the world is polarizing is because of financial dynamics between creditor
and debtor economies. But trade theory starts by assuming a world of barter. Finally, when the
transition from trade theory to international finance is made, the assumption is that countries
running trade deficits can "stabilize" by imposing austerity, by lowering wages, wiping out
pension funds and joining the class war against labor.
All these assumptions were repudiated already in the 18 th century, when Britain
sought to build up its empire by pursuing mercantilist policies. The protectionist American
School of Economics in the 19 th century put forth the Economy of High Wages
doctrine to counter free-trade theory. None of this historical background appears in today's
mainstream textbooks. (I provide a historical survey in Trade, Development and
Foreign Debt , new ed., 2002. That book summarizes my course in international trade
and finance that I taught at the New School from 1969 to 1972.)
In the 1920s, free-trade theory was used to insist that Germany could pay reparations far
beyond its ability to earn foreign exchange. Keynes, Harold Moulton and other economists
controverted that theory. In fact, already in 1844, John Stuart Mill described how paying
foreign debts lowered the exchange rate. When that happens, what is lowered is basically wages.
So what passes for today's mainstream trade theory is basically an argument for reducing wages
and fighting a class war against labor.
You can see this quite clearly in the eurozone, above all in the austerity imposed on
Greece. The austerity programs that the IMF imposed on Third World debtors from the 1960s
onward. It looks like a dress rehearsal to provide a cover story for the same kind of
"equilibrium economics" we may see in the United States.
JR: Can the US pay its debts permanently? Does the amount of federal debt, $18 or $19
trillion even matter? Should we pay down the national debt?
MH: It is mainly anti-labor austerity advocates who urge balancing the budget, and even to
run surpluses to pay down the national debt. The effect must be austerity.
A false parallel is drawn with private saving. Of course individuals should get out of debt
by saving what they can. But governments are different. Governments create money and spend it
into the economy by running budget deficits. The paper currency in your pocket is technically a
government debt. It appears on the liabilities side of the public balance sheet.
When President Clinton ran a budget surplus in the late 1990s, that sucked revenue
out of the U.S. economy. When governments do not run deficits, the economy is
obliged to rely on banks – which charge interest for providing credit. Governments can
create money on their own computers just as well. They can do this without having to pay
bondholders or banks.
That is the essence of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). It is elaborated mainly at the
University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC), especially by Randy Wray – who has just
published a number of books on money – and Stephanie Kelton, whom Bernie Sanders
appointed as head of the Senate Democratic Budget Committee.
If the government were to pay off its debts permanently, there would be no money –
except for what banks create. That has never been the case in history, going all the way back
to ancient Mesopotamia. All money is a government debt, accepted in payment of taxes
This government money creation does not mean that governments can pay foreign
debts. The danger comes when debts are owed in a foreign currency. Governments are unable to
tax foreigners. Paying foreign debts puts downward pressure on exchange rates. This leads to
crises, which often end by relinquishing political control to the IMF and foreign banks. They
demand "conditionalities" in the form of anti-labor legislation and privatization.
In cases where national economies cannot pay foreign debts out of current
balance-of-payments revenue, debts should be written down, not paid off. If they are not
written down, you have the kind of austerity that is tearing Greece apart today.
JR: You say that mainstream economic theory and academic study is pro-creditor? Why is
this the case?
MH: Thorstein Veblen pointed out that vested interests are the main endowers and backers of
the higher learning in America. Hardly by surprise, they promote a bankers'-eye view of the
world. Imperialists promote a similar self-serving worldview.
Economic theory, like history, is written by the winners. In today's world that means the
financial sector. They depict banks as playing a productive role, as if loans are made to help
borrowers earn the money to pay interest and still keep something for themselves. The pretense
is that banks finance industrial capital formation, not asset stripping.
What else would you expect banks to promote? The classical distinction between productive
and unproductive (that is, extractive) loans is not taught. The result has been to turn
mainstream economics as a public-relations advertisement for the status quo, which meanwhile
becomes more and more inequitable and polarizes the economy.
JR: What can be learned by studying the history of economic thought? What did Adam Smith
and the people in his era and those which followed him understand that would be useful to us
now?
MH: If you read Adam Smith and subsequent classical economists, you see that their main
concern was to distinguish between productive and unproductive economic activity. They wanted
to isolate unproductive rentier income, and unproductive spending and credit.
To do this, they developed the labor theory of value to distinguish value from price –
with "economic rent" being the excess of price over socially necessary costs of production.
They wanted tofree industrial capitalism from the legacy of feudalism: tax-like groundrent paid
to a hereditary landed aristocracy. They also opposed the monopolies that bondholders had
insisted that governments create to sell off to pay the public debt. That was why the East
India Company and the South Sea Company were created with their special privileges.
Smith and his followers are applauded as the founding fathers of "free market" economics.
But they defined free markets in a diametrically opposite way from today's self-proclaimed
neoliberals. Smith and other classical economists urged markets free from economic
rent.
These classical reformers realized that progressive taxation to stop favoring
rentiers required a government strong enough to take on society's most powerful and
entrenched vested interests. The 19 th -century drive for Parliamentary reform in
Britain aimed at enabling the House of Commons to override the House of Lords and tax the
landlords. (This rule finally passed in 1910 after a constitutional crisis.) Now there has been
a fight by creditors to nullify democratic politics, most notoriously in Greece.
Today's neoliberals define free markets as those free for rent-seekers and
predatory bankers from government regulation and taxes.
No wonder the history of economic thought has been stripped away from the curriculum.
Reading the great classical economists would show how the Enlightenment's reform program has
been inverted. The world is now racing down a road to the Counter-Enlightenment, a neo-
rentier economy that is bringing economic growth to a halt.
JR: Why does economic thought minimize the role of debt? I.e. I read Paul Krugman and he
says the total amount of debtisn't a problem, for example you can't find the internet bust in
GDP or the 1987 crash?
MH: When economists speak of money, they neglect that all money and credit is debt. That is
the essence of bookkeeping and accounting. There are always two sides to the balance sheet. And
one party's money or savings is another party's debt.
Mainstream economic models describe a world that operates on barter, not on credit. The
basic characteristic of credit and debt is that it bears interest. Any rate of interest can be
thought of as a doubling time. Already in Babylonia c. 1900 BC, scribes were taught to c
alculate compound interest, and how long it took a sum to double (5 years) quadruple (10 years)
or multiply 64 times (30 years). Martin Luther called usury Cacus, the monster that absorbs
everything. And in Volume III of Capital and also his Theories of Surplus
Value , Marx collected the classical writings about how debts mount up at interest by
purely mathematical laws, without regard for the economy's ability to pay.
The problem with debt is not only interest. Shylock's loan against a pound of flesh was a
zero-interest loan. When crops fail, farmers cannot even pay the principal. They then may lose
their land, which is their livelihood. Forfeiture is a key part of the credit/debt dynamic. But
the motto of mainstream neoliberal economics is, "If the eye offends thee, pluck it out."
Discussing the unpayability of debt is offensive to creditors.
Anyone who sets out to calculate the ability pay quickly recognizes that the overall volume
of debts cannot be paid. Keynes that made point in the 1920s regarding Germany's inability to
pay reparations.
Needless to say, banks and bondholders do not want to promote any arguments explaining the
limits to how much can be paid without pushing economies into depression. That is what my
Killing the
Host is about. It is the direction in which the eurozone is now going, and the United
States also issuffering debt deflation.
Turning to the second part of your question, Krugman and others say that debt doesn't matter
because "we owe it to ourselves." But the "we" who owe it are the 99 Percent; the people who
are "ourselves" are the One Percent. So the 99 Percent Owe the One Percent. And they owe more
and more,thanks to the "magic of compound interest."
Krugman has a blind spot when it comes to understanding money. In his famous debate with
Steve Keen, he denied that banks create money or credit. He insists that commercial banks only
lend out deposits. But Keen and the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) school show that loans
create deposits , not the other way around. When a banker writes a loan on his computer
keyboard, he creates a deposit as the counterpart.
Endogenous money is easily created electronically. That privilege enables banks to charge
interest. Governments could just as easily create money on their own computers. Neoliberal
privatizers want to block governments from doing this, so that economies will have to rely on
commercial banks for the money and credit they need to grow.
The mathematics of compound interest means that economies can only pay their debts by
creating a financial bubble – more and more credit to bid up asset prices for real
estate, stocks and bonds, enabling banks to make larger loans. Today's economies are obliged to
develop into Ponzi schemes to keep going – until they collapses\ in a crash.
JR: The models of the macroeconomy to forecast the future and to develop policy at
institutions like the IMF, often consider finance and banking as just another sector of
industry, like construction or manufacturing. How do these institutions consider their model of
the financial sector?
MH: The IMF acts as the collection agent for global bondholders. Its projections begin by
assuming that all debts can be paid, if economies will cut wages and wiping out pension funds
so as to pay banks and bondholders.
As long as creditors remain in control, they are quite willing to sacrifice the 99 Percent
to pay the One Percent. When IMF "stabilization" programs end up destabilizing their hapless
victims, mainstream media blame the collapse on the debtor country for not shedding enough
blood to impose even more austerity.
Economists often define their discipline as "the allocation of scarce resources among
competing ends." But when resources or money really become scarce, economists call it
a crisis and say that it's a question for politicians, not their own department. Economic
models are only marginal – meaning, small changes, not structural.
The only trend that does grow inexorably is that of debt. The more it grows, the
more it slows the "real" economy of production and consumption. So something must give: either
the economy, or creditor claims. And that does indeed change the structure of the economy. It
is a political as well as an economic change.
Regarding the second part of your question – how creditor institutions model the
financial sector – when they look at prices they only consider wages and consumer prices,
not asset prices. Yet most bank credit is tied to asset prices, because loans are made to buy
homes or commercial real estate, stocks or bonds, not bread and butter.
Not looking at what is obviously important requires a great effort of tunnel vision. But as
Upton Sinclair noted, there are some jobs – like being a central banker, or a New
York Times editorial writer – that require the applicant not to understand
the topic they are assigned to study. Hence, you have Paul Krugman on money and banking, the
IMF on economic stabilization, and Rubinomics politicians on bailing out the banks instead of
saving the economy.
If I can add a technical answer: The IMF does not recognize that the "budget problem"
– squeezing domestic currency out of the economy by taxing wages and industry – is
quite different from the "transfer problem" of converting this money into foreign exchange.
That distinction was the essence of the German reparations debate in the 1920s. It is a focus
of my history of theories of Trade, Development and
Foreign Debt .
Drawing this distinction shows why austerity programs do not help countries pay their
foreign debt, but tears them apart and induces emigration and capital flight.
JR: Does the financial sector add to GDP?
MH: The financial sector is a rentier sector – external to the "real" economy
of production and consumption, and therefore a form of overhead. As overhead, it should be a
subtracted from GDP.
JR: In the way that oil industry funded junk science on global warming denial, Wall
Street funds and endows junk economics and equilibrium thinking?
Falling on your face is a state of equilibrium. So is death – and each moment of
dying. Equilibrium is simply a cross section in time. Water levels 20 or 30 feet higher would
be another form of equilibrium. But to the oil industry, "equilibrium" means their earnings
continuing to grow at the present rate, year after year. This involves selling more and more
oil, even if this raises sea levels and floods continents. That is simply ignored as not
relevant to earnings. By the time that flooding occurs, today's executives will have taken
their bonuses and capital gains and retired.
That kind of short-termism is the essence of junk economics. It is tunnel-visioned.
What also makes economics junky is assuming that any "disturbance" sets in motion
countervailing forces that return the economy to its "original" state – as if this were
stable, not moving down the road to debt peonage and similar economic polarization.
The reality is what systems analysts call positive feedback: When an economy gets out of
balance, especially as a result of financial predators, the feedback and self-reinforcing
tendencies push it further and further out of balance.
My trade theory book traced the history of economists who recognize this. Once a class or
economy falls into debt, the debt overhead tends to grow steadily until it stifles market
demand and subjects the economy to debt deflation. Income is sucked upward to the creditors,
who then foreclose on the assets of debtors. This shrinks tax revenue, forcing public budgets
into deficit. And when governments are indebted, they becomemore subject to pressure to
privatization of public enterprise. Assets are turned over to monopolists, who further shrink
the economy by predatory rent seeking.
An economy going bankrupt such as Greece and having to sell off its land, gas rights, ports
and public utilities is "in equilibrium" at any given moment that its working-age population is
emigrating, people are losing their pensions and suffering.
When economists treat depressions merely as self-curing "business downturns," they are
really saying that no government action is required from "outside" "the market" to rectify
matters and put the economy back on track to prosperity. So equilibrium thinking isbasically
anti-government libertarian theory.
But when banks are subjected to "equilibrium" by writing down debts in keeping with the
ability of borrowers to pay, WallStreet's pet politicians and economic journalists call this a
crisis and insist that the banks and bondholders must be saved or there will be a crisis. This
is not a solution. It makes the problem worse and worse.
There is an alternative, of course. That is to understand the dynamics at work transforming
economic and socialstructures. That's what classical economics was about.
The post-classical revolution was marginalist. That means that economists only look at small
changes, not structural changes. That isanother way of saying that reforms are not necessary
– because reforms change structures, not merely redistribute a little bit of income as a
bandage.
What used to be "political economy" gave way to just plain "economics" by World War I. As it
became increasingly abstract and mathematical, students who studied the subject because they
wanted to make the world better were driven out, into other disciplines. That was my experience
teaching at the New School already nearly half a century ago. The discipline has become much
more tunnel-visioned since then.
Present state of financial world
JR: We see around the world something like 25% of all national debt is now has a yield
priced in negative interest rates? What does this mean? Do you see this continuing?
MH: On the one hand, negative interest rates reflect a flight to security by investors. They
worry that the debts can't be paid and that there are going to be defaults.
They also see that the United States and Europe are in a state of debt deflation, where
people and businesses have to pay banks instead of spending their income on goods and services.
So markets shrink, sales and profits fall, and the stock market turns down.
This decline was offset by the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank trying to
re-inflate the Bubble Economy by Quantitative Easing – providing reserves to the banks in
exchange for their portfolio of mortgages and other loans. Otherwise, the banks would have had
to sell these loans in "the market" at falling prices.
In the name of saving "the market," the Fed and ECB therefore overruled the market. Today,
over 80 percent of U.S. home mortgages are guaranteed by the Federal Housing Authority. Banks
won't make loans without the government picking up the risk of non-payment. So bankers just
pretend to be free market. That's for their victims.
The "flight to security" is a move out of the stock and bond markets into government debt.
Stocks and bonds may go down in price, some companies may go bankrupt, but national governments
can always print the money to pay their bondholders. Investors are mainly concerned about
keeping whatthey have – security of principal. They are willing to be paid less income in
exchange for preserving what they have taken.
Here's the corner that the economy has backed itself into. The solution to most problems
creates new problems – blowback or backlash, which often turn out to be even bigger
problems. Negative interest rates mean that pension funds cannot invest in securities that
yield enough for them to pay what they have promised their contributors. Insurance companies
can't earn the money to pay their policyholders. So something has to give.
There will be breaks in the chain of payments. But the way Wall Street administrators at the
Treasury and Fed plan the crisis is for small savers to lose out to the large institutional
investors. So the bottom line that I see is a slow crash.
JR: Could there be a more symbiotic relationship with global financial institutions? For
money to have value, doesn't it need a functioning economy, rather than an
entirelyfinancialized one?
MH: Money is debt. It is a claim on some debtor. Government money is a claim by its
holder on the government, settled by the government accepting it as payment for tax debts.
Being a claim on a debtor, money does not necessarily need a functioning economy. It can be
part of a foreclosure process, transferring property to creditors. A financialized economy
tends to strip the economy of money, by sucking up to the creditor One Percent on top. That
is what happened in Rome, and the result was the Dark Age.
JR: In 2007/2008 we had a subprime crash and since 2014 we've had a commodities crash
where oil prices are low, is this because of what's going on in emerging market economies? Are
emerging market economies and China the next subprime?
MH: The current U.S. and Eurozone depression isn't because of China. It's because of
domestic debt deflation. Commodity prices and consumer spending are falling, mainly because
consumers have to pay most of their wages to the FIRE sector for rent or mortgage payments,
student loans, bank and credit card debt, plus over 15 percent FICA wage withholding for Social
Security and Medicare (actually, to enable the government to cut taxes on the higher income
brackets), as well income and sales taxes. After all this is paid, consumers don't have that
much left to spend on commodities. So of course commodity prices are crashing.
Oil is a special case. Saudi Arabia is trying to drive U.S. fracking rivals out of business,
while also hurting Russia. This lowers gas prices for U.S. and Eurozone consumers, but not by
enough to spur economic recovery.
JR: You've written that we're entering a financial cold war – the IMF and the US
have been very strict on debt repayment for loans from debtor nations, but in Ukraine they've
made an exception regarding Russia, could you discuss your recent writing on that?
MH: U.S. diplomats radically changed IMF lending rules as part of their economic sanctions
imposed on Russia as result of the coup d'état by the Right Sector, Svoboda and their
neo-Nazi allies in Kiev. The ease with which the U.S. changed these rules to support the
military coup shows how the IMF is simply a tool of President Obama's New Cold War policy.
The
aim was to enable the IMF to keep lending to the military junta even though Ukraine is in
default of its $3 billion debt to Russia, even though it refuses to negotiate payment, and even
though IMF money has been used to fund kleptocrats such as Kolomoisky to field his own army
against Russian speakers in Donbas. Ukraine has no foreseeablemeans of paying off the IMF and
other creditors, given its destruction of its export industry in the East. My articles on this
are on my website, michael-hudson.com
.
JR: Today's economy has some truly amazing technology from companies like Apple, but
Apple is also example of financial engineering, you outline this in your book, what financial
innovations havebeen associated with the story of Apple's stock?
MH: The main financial innovation by Apple has been to set up a branch office in Ireland and
pretend that the money it makes in the Untied States and elsewhere is made in Ireland –
which has only a 15 percent income-tax rate
The problem is that if Apple remits this income back to the United States, it will have to
pay U.S. income tax. It wants to avoid this – unless Wall Street can convince politicians
to declare a "tax holiday" would let tax avoiders bring all their foreign money back to the
United States "tax free." That would be a tax amnesty only for the very wealthy, not for the 99
Percent.
JR: This tax angle explains why Apple, almost the wealthiest company in the world, has
been urged by activist shareholders to borrow. Why should the richest company have to go into
debt?
MH: The answer is that Apple can borrow from U.S. banks at a low interest rate to pay
dividends on its stock, instead of paying these dividends by bringing its income back home and
paying the taxes that are due.
It would seem to be an anomaly to borrow from banks and pay dividends. But that is the
"cannibalism" stage of modern finance capitalism, U.S.-style. For the stock market as a whole,
some 92 percent of earnings recently were used to pay dividends or for stock buybacks.
JR: What is the eventual outcome of all theses corporate buybacks to pump up share
prices?
MH: The problem with a company using its revenue simply to buy its own shares to support
their price (and hence, enable CEOs to increase their salaries and bonuses, and make more
capital gains on their stock options) is that the price fillip is temporary. Last year saw the
largest volume of U.S. stock buybacks on record. But since January 1, the market has fallen by
about 20 percent. The debts that companies took on to buy stocks remain in place; and the
earnings that companies used to buy these stocks are now gone.
Corporations did not use their income to invest in long-term expansion. The financial time
frame always has been short-term. Projects with long-term paybacks are cut back, because CEOs
and financial managers simply want to take their money and run. That is the financial
mentality.
JR: What is the outcome of all theses corporate buybacks to pump up share
prices?
MH: When the dust settles, companies financialized in this way are left as debt-leveraged
shells. CEOs then go to their labor unions and threaten to declare bankruptcy if the unions
don't scale back their pension demands. So there is a deliberate tactic to force companies into
debt for short-term earnings and stock-price gains in the short term, and a more intensive
class war against present and past employees and pensioners as a longer-term policy.
JR: Why do business schools endorse of financialization? Reversing
short-termism?
MH: The financial sector is the major endower of business schools. They have become training
grounds for Chief Financial Officers. AtHarvard, Prof. Jensen reasoned that managers should aim
at serving stockholders, not the company as such. The result was an "incentive" system tying
management bonuses to the stock price. So naturally, CFOs used corporate earnings for stock
buybacks and dividend payouts that provided a short-term jump in the stock price.
The ideological foundation of today's business schools is that economic control should be
shifted out of government hands into those of financial managers – that is, Wall Street.
That is their idea of freeenterprise. Its inevitable tendency is to end in more centralized
planning by Wall Street than in Washington.
The aim of this financial planning is quite different from that of governments. As I wrote
in Killing the
Host : "The euro and the ECB were designed in a way that blocks government money
creation for any purpose other than to support the banks and bondholders. The financial sector
takes over the role of economic planner, putting its technicians in charge of monetary and
fiscal policy without democratic voice or referendums over debt and tax policies."
Financial planning always has been short-term. That is why planning should not be consigned
to banks and bondholders. Their mentality is extractive, and that ends up hit-and-run. What
passes for mainstream financial analysis is simply to add up how much is owed and demand
payment, not help the economy grow. To financial managers, economic prosperity and unemployment
is an "externality" – that is, not part of the equation that they are concerned with.
Future
JR: The story of Greece in recent years is relevant to our discussion because the
political party Syriza took over with ideas that were traditionally representing the left? Does
the body of traditional left ideas have the ability to solve some of the challenges regarding
financial warfare?
MH: The left and former Social Democratic or Labour parties have dome to focus on political
and cultural issues, not the economic policy that led to their original creation. What is
lacking is a focus on rent theory and financial analysis. Part of the explanation probably is
covert U.S. funding and sponsorship of Blair-type neoliberals.
The eurozone threatened Greece with domestic destabilization if it did not surrender to the
Troika's demands. Syriza's leaders worried that the ensuing turmoil would bring a right-wing
neo-Nazi group such as Golden Dawn into power, or a military dictatorship as a client oligarchy
for U.S. and German neoliberals.
So the political choice today is much like the 1930s, when the global economy also broke
down. The choice is between nationalism and populism on the right, or socialism reviving what
used to be left-wing politics.
JR: Could there be a debt write down? Isn't someone's debts another person's savings, i.e.
pension funds, 401k, retirement funds?
MH: The problem is indeed that one party's debt finds its counterpart in some other party's
savings. Not paying debts therefore involves annulling some other party's financial claims on
the debtor. What happens to the savings on the other side of the savings/debt balance
sheet?
JR: The political question is, who will lose first?
MH: The answer is, the least politically protected. The end game is "Big fish eat little
fish." Pension funds are in the front line of sacrifice, while government bondholders are the
most secure. Greek pensionsalready have been written down, and the savings of U.S. pension
funds, Social Security and other social programs are the first to be annulled.
The only way to achieve a fair debt cancellation is to write down the debts of the
wealthiest, not the most needy. That is the opposite of how matters are being resolved today.
That is why southern Europe is being radicalized over the debt issue.
JR: Will financialized economies implode? Leaving the non-financialized ones?
MH: The One Percent who hold most of the economy's savings are quite willing to plunge
society into depression to collect on their savings claims. Their greed is why we are in an
economic war much like Rome's Conflict of the Orders that shaped the Republic, and its century
of civil war between creditors and debtors, 133-29 BC.
Argentina has been imploding, just as Third World debtors were obliged to do when they
accepted IMF austerity programs and "conditionalities" for loans to keep their currencies from
depreciating. To avoid being forced to adopt such self-defeating and anti-democratic policies,
it looks like countries will have to move out of the U.S. and Eurozone orbit into that of the
BRICS. That is why today's financial crisis is leading to a New Cold War. It is as much
financial as it is military.
JR: How would you advise a politician to restore prosperity in the future?
MH: The problem is who to give advice to. Most politicians today – at least in the
United States – are proxies for their campaign contributors. President Obama is basically
a lobbyist for his Wall Street in the Democratic Party's Robert Rubin gang. That kind of
demagogue wouldn't pay any attention to policies that I or other economists would make. Their
job is not to make the economy better, but to defend their campaign contributors among the One
Percent at the economy's expense.
But when I go to China or Russia, here's what I advise (without much success so far, I
admit):
First, tax land rent and other economic rent. Make it the tax base. Otherwise, this rental
value will end up being pledged to banks as interest on credit borrowed to buy rent-yielding
assets.
Second, make banks into public utilities. Credit creation is like land or air: a monopoly
created by society. As organs of public policy they would not play the derivatives casino, or
make corporatetakeover loans to raiders, or falsify mortgage documents.
Third, do not privatize basic utilities. Public ownership enables basic services to be
provided at cost, on a subsidized basis, or freely. That will make the economy more
competitive. The cost of upgrading public infrastructure can be defrayed by basing the tax
system on economic rent, not wages.
Does it have to be this way ?
The Eurozone die is cast. Countries must withdraw from the euro so that governments can
create their own money once again, and resist creditor demands to carve up and privatize their
public domain.
For the United States, I don't see a concerted alternative to neoliberalism squeezing more
and more interest and rent out of the economy, making the present slump even deeper in
debt.
How won't debts be paid?
There are two ways not to pay debts: either by annulling or repudiating them, or by
foreclosure when creditors take or demand property in lieu of monetary payment.
The first way not to pay is to default or proclaim a Clean Slate. The most successful
example in modern times is the German Economic Miracle – the Allied Monetary Reform of
1948. That cancelled Germany's internal debts except for wages owed by employers, and minimum
working balances.
The United States Government has fought against creation of an international court to
adjudicate the ability of national economies to pay debts. If such a court is not
created, the global economy will fracture. That is occurring in what looks like a New Cold War
pitting the United States and its NATO satellites against the BRICS (China, Russia, South
Africa, Brazil and India) along with Iran and other debtors.
The US preferred policy is for countries to sell off whatever is in their public domain when
they lack the money to pay their debts. This is the "foreclosure" stage.
Short of these two ways of not paying debts, economies are submitting to debt deflation.
That strips income from producers and consumers, businesses and governments to pay creditors.
As the debtor economy weakens, the debt arrears mount up – often at rising interest rates
to reflect the risk of non-payment as creditors realize that there is no "business as usual'
way in which the debts can be paid.
Debtor countries may postpone the inevitable by borrowing from the IMF or U.S. Treasury to
buy out bondholders. This saves the latter from taking a loss – leaving the debtor
country with debts that are even harder to annul, because they are to foreign governments and
international institutions. That is why it is a very bad policy for countries to move from
owing money to private bondholders to owing the IMF or European Central Bank, whose demands are
unforgiving.
In the long term, debts won't be paid in the way that Rome's debts were not paid. The money
economy itself was stripped, and the empire fell into a prolonged Dark Age. That is the fate
that will befall the West if it continues to support the "rights" of creditors over the right
of nations and economies to survive.
This is a transcript from an interview on the
XE Podcast conducted by Justin Ritchie.
If anyone still thinks that Donald Trump has some master plan to kill off his Deep State
adversaries they should check themselves into therapy. I know withdrawal is hard, but admitting
you have a problem is the first step to curing it.
He doesn't have a plan. He may fight them but it won't be with any kind of master plan to
trap them in some beautiful bit of political judo.
Frankly, Vladimir Putin he is not.
No, Trump is winging things at this point. While he still has the office he's trying to do
some of the things he promised. Doing that may keep him in power for a few more months.
But with his walking back the timetable for pulling troops out of Syria after a visit from
Lindsay Graham (R-MIC/AIPAC) should tell you all you need to know about Trump's willingness to
stand up to the pressure he's under.
Add to that the opening salvo from Mitt Romney (R-Wall St.) and it becomes pretty clear that
Trump was told what the score really is. When, not if, the Democrats push for impeachment or a
25th Amendment proceeding against him Graham and Romney will lead a GOP revolt against him,
siding with Senate Democrats to get rid of him.
That's been the point of this from the beginning. Pat Buchanan and I both talked about this
from the moment he was elected. Pat reminding us of what happened to Nixon who was hounded out
of office because he did the unthinkable -- ending the Vietnam War.
I've been simply looking at this from the standard libertarian perspective that "War is the
health of the state" and Trump's opposition to our Middle East follies would net him nothing
but contempt.
The Makinder "Heartland" view of Geopolitics holds complete sway in Washington, Downing St.
and the Pentagon. And as such, the Middle East is the access point to the Heartland and that
means destroying both Russia and Iran to ensure that Germany never joins them.
This is why The Swamp will not let Trump make nice with Putin. It's why the British deep
state and intelligence community was so eager to help Hillary Clinton fabricate the Russiagate
controversy through the creation of the Steele Dossier.
It's why outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, would only
entertain a peace deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan as long as the U.S. maintained all of
its military presence there.
In other words, accept our colonial presence here to ensure you stay in the 19th century and
we no longer have to fight openly.
If for nothing else, Trump's firing Dunford was a brief bit of joy that may outlive his
presidency. Not much else will.
Look, the Deep State is vast and cruel. Nancy Pelosi's first act as Speaker of the House was
to declare open season on Trump. She'll wait until the Mueller report to start the process but
she seems pretty confident she'll get what she needs.
Michael Cohen likely provided the road map to Trump's shady business dealings (far beyond
his pecadillos) which will be used against him. Impeachment isn't a legal proceeding, it's a
purely political one.
There is no standard of proof. If you're hated by enough of the right people, you're done.
That's it. In a time of unlimited corruption counting on people to act honorably is a fool's
game.
And Trump at this point is the head fool.
You don't announce something like the withdrawal from Syria and all that that entails only
to walk it back 10 days later because someone threatened you.
In fact, Trump's best, and frankly, only course of action now is to go on the offensive. And
Elizabeth Warren memes, no matter how entertaining, are not getting this done.
As I lay out in this video, the threat of exposing all of the corruption is his best play.
It may cost him everything but if he's going down the best thing he can do to MAGA is take as
many of them down as possible.
Spot on Tom. Ending a Predator Class war for global hegemony (the Makinder World Island
quest) is a capital offense for any President. That's why JFK was offed... (the Nixon tale is
not credible... Nixon sabotaged LBJ's negotiations with the N. Vietnamese and with Kissinger
dragged on the war until the US was kicked out in '75).
Trump could appeal to the American people over Syria and Afghanistan claiming that as the
Peace President he is being threatened... Maybe DoJ gets cleaned out; Mueller has
nothing.
Order the acting AG to appoint Special Prosecutors for Clinton, Feinstein and Pelosi and
others for their treason and their Chinese Business Dealings
Declassify all of the JFK and other documents that you promised to release, the Mexican
stand off ends the day Trump leaves office and they bankrupt and imprison him and his
family.
Name the CFR, and all other Globalist Organizations and NeoCons, as Foreign Agents and
force register all of their members as Foreign Agents.
Pull the Security clearances from all people not currently employed by the Govt,
especially the CFR members and similar organization.
Name the ADL and SPLC as Hate Groups and appoint a special prosecutor to go after
them.
PS Stop appointing people who want you dead in the key positions in your government
PPS Pardon Assange and give him diplomatic passage to some country that won't extradite
him like Iceland or perhaps Switzerland.
We will stay because our Israeli bought government wants it. They will never allow Trump
to exit Syria.
Here is a list of politicians who carry Israeli Citizenship ... Good to know and explains
a lot
112 CONGRESS
THE US SENATE [13]
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Benjamin Cardin (D-MD) Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA) Al Franken (D-MN) Herb Kohl (D-WI) Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Joseph Lieberman
(Independent-CT) Carl Levin (D-MI) Charles Schumer (D-NY) Ron Wyden (D-OR) Michael Bennet
(D-CO)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [27]
Gary Ackerman (D-NY) Shelley Berkley (D-NV) Howard Berman (D-CA) Eric Cantor (R-VA) David
Cicilline (D-RI) Stephen Cohen (D-TN) Susan Davis (D-CA) Ted Deutch (D-FL) Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Bob Filner (D-CA) Barney Frank (D-MA) Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) Jane Harman (D-CA) Steve
Israel (D-NY) Sander Levin (D-MI) Nita Lowey (D-NY) Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Jared Polis (D-CO)
Steve Rothman (D-NJ) Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) Adam Schiff (D-CA) Brad
Sherman (D-CA) Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) Henry Waxman (D-CA) Anthony Weiner (D-NY) John
Yarmuth (D-KY)
Here is a list of Israel's 'contributions' to US senators
"... The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto ..."
"... "Uneven Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality" ..."
"... "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social contract might be." ..."
"... New America Foundation's ..."
"... The Social Contract in Africa ..."
"... "Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems" The Guardian ..."
"... Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly? ..."
"... "From Military Keynesianism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism" ..."
"... Monthly Review ..."
"... A Short History ofNeoliberalism ..."
"... Ideology, the Neoliberal State, and the Social Contract ..."
"... "I think not having the ..."
"... recognizes the people that are investing -- as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies." ..."
"... "the transition from organised capitalism to neoliberal hegemony over the recent period has brought about a corresponding transformation in subjectivity. Leading celebrities, most notably high-tech entrepreneurs, for instance, operate in the popular imagination as models of achievement for the aspiring young. They are seldom emulated in real life, however, even unrealistically so. Still, their famed lifestyles and heavily publicised opinions provide guidelines to appropriate conduct in a ruthlessly competitive and unequal world." ..."
"... "Pessimism of Intelligence, Optimism of Will" ..."
"... Perspectives on Gramsci ..."
"... Social vs. Corporate Welfare ..."
"... "The common denominator is the empowering of elites over the masses with the assistance of international forces through military action or financial coercion -- a globalized dialectic of ruling classes." ..."
"... The End of Ideology ..."
"... : "It's the end of ideology in China. Not the end of all ideology, but the end of Marxist ideology. China has many social problems, but the government and its people will deal with them in pragmatic ways, without being overly constrained by ideological boundaries. I still think there's a need for a moral foundation for political rule in China – some sort of guiding ideal for the future – but it won't come from Karl Marx." ..."
"... The End of History ..."
"... Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology ..."
"... "Limiting Dissent: The Mechanisms of State Repression in the USA" Social Movement Studies," ..."
"... The Great Transformation ..."
"... "To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment would result in the demolition of society." ..."
"... "The withering away of national states and the wholesale privatization of state-owned enterprises and state-administered services transferred highly profitable monopolies to capitalists, and guaranteed the repayment of the foreign debt-contracted, as in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay-by irresponsible, corrupt, and de facto military rulers. Neoliberalism supplied the general justification for the transfer of public assets and state-owned enterprises, paid for with public savings, even in areas considered "taboo" and untouchable until a few years ago, such as electricity, aviation, oil, or telecommunications. ..."
"... "Democracy or Neoliberalism?" ..."
"... "When Exclusion Replaces Exploitation: The Condition of the Surplus-Population under Neoliberalism" ..."
"... Neoliberalism and Fascism ..."
"... The role of the state ..."
"... "The combination of economic disruption, cultural disruption ― nothing feels solid to people ― that's a recipe for people wanting to find security somewhere. And sadly, there's something in all of us that looks for simple answers when we're agitated and insecure. The narrative that America at its best has stood for, the narrative of pluralism and tolerance and democracy and rule of law, human rights and freedom of the press and freedom of religion, that narrative, I think, is actually the more powerful narrative. The majority of people around the world aspire to that narrative, which is the reason people still want to come here." ..."
"... Independence from America: Global Integration and Inequality ..."
"... Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America ..."
"... everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. ..."
"... "everything within neoliberalism, nothing against neoliberalism, nothing outside neoliberalism. ..."
"... Neoliberal Fascism: Free Markets and the Restructuring of Indian Capitalism," ..."
"... is seen as an effort by neoliberalism, or perhaps more broadly by capitalism, to divert attention from class conflict, to divide and weaken working class struggles and to deflect class-driven anxieties on to minority communities. This approach is problematic in two senses. First, it does not explain why Hindutva organisations are able to develop a mass base, except to the extent that they are seen to be appealing to "historical identity" or "emotive" issues. ..."
"... The state exists ..."
"... as the expression and guarantor of a collectivity founded around a transcendent principle ..."
"... The ideal state is the guarantor of the Hindu rashtra, a "nation" that exists as an organic and harmonious unity between "Hindus." ..."
"... The Politics of Free Markets ..."
"... "The new dual sate is alive and well: Normative State for the core populations of the capitalist center, and another State of arbitrary decrees for the non-citizens who are the rest. Unlike in classical fascism, this second State is only dimly visible from the first. The radical critique protesting that liberty within the Normative State is an illusion, although understandable, is erroneous. The denial of citizenship based not on exploitation, oppression and straightforward discrimination, but on mere exclusion and distance, is difficult to grasp, because the mental habits of liberation struggle for a more just redistribution of goods and powers are not applicable. The problem is not that the Normative State is becoming more authoritarian: rather, that it belongs only to a few." ..."
"... Alternative fur Deutchalnd ..."
"... Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty ..."
"... Neoliberalism presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state. I would go so far as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism's long-nascent project, in that the desire to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact on the planet -- in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding ideology. ..."
"... The Fascist Nature of Neoliberalism ..."
"... "La Dottrina del Fascismo" ..."
"... "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state," ..."
"... "inverted totalitarianism" ..."
"... Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, ..."
"... Neoliberalism and Terror: Critical Engagements ..."
"... Characteristics of the Illiberal Neoliberal Society ..."
"... Sociology of Imperialism ..."
"... "The bourgeoisie did not simply supplant the sovereign, nor did it make him its leader, as did the nobility. It merely wrested a portion of its power from him and for the rest submitted to him. It did not take over from the sovereign the state as an abstract form of organization. The state remained a special social power, confronting the bourgeoisie. In some countries it has continued to play that role to the present day. It is in the state that the bourgeoisie with its interests seeks refuge, protection against external and even domestic enemies. The bourgeoisie seeks to win over the state for itself, and in return serves the state and state interests that are different from its own." ..."
"... Democratic elections have become the means for installing leaders with little respect for democratic values. The tolerance, openness and inclusiveness on which modern democracy is founded are being rejected by candidates and voters in favor of sectarian, parochial fears and interests. The role of the free press as an impartial arbiter of facts is being undermined by the rise of private and public news media conglomerates purveying political preference as fact combined with a blinding blizzard of fake news. Party politics has been polarized into a winner-take-all fight to the finish by vested-interests and impassioned extremist minorities trying to impose their agendas on a complacent majority. Corporate power and money power are transforming representative governments into plutocratic pseudo-democracies. Fundamentalists are seizing the instruments of secular democracy to impose intolerant linguistic, racial and religious homogeneity in place of the principles of liberty and harmonious heterogeneity that are democracy's foundation and pinnacle of achievement." ..."
"... "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are "racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma." ..."
"... "Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought. The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy." ..."
"... Lectures on Fascism, ..."
"... Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood, their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical liberalism was successful too, for two and a half centuries, in people's self-definition, although communism and fascism succeeded less well in realizing the "new man." It cannot be emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism idealized it. ..."
"... "In some parts of Europe, and in the United States, anti-foreigner rhetoric full of unbridled vitriol and hatred, is proliferating to a frightening degree, and is increasingly unchallenged. The rhetoric of fascism is no longer confined to a secret underworld of fascists, meeting in ill-lit clubs or on the 'deep net'. It is becoming part of normal daily discourse." ..."
"... The Global Rise of Populism ..."
"... The risk democratic formations continually face is internal disintegration such that the heterogeneous elements of the social order not only fail to come together within some principle of or for unity, but actively turn against one another. In this case, a totally unproductive revolution takes place. Rather than subversion of the normative order causing suffering, rebellion or revolution that might establish a new nomos of shared life as a way of establishing a new governing logic, the dissociated elements of disintegrating democratic formations identify with the very power responsible for their subjection–capital, the state and, the strong leader. Thus the possibility of fascism is not negated in neoliberal formations but is an ever present possibility arising within it. Because the value of the social order as such is never in itself sufficient to maintain its own constitution, it must have recourse to an external value, which is the order of the sacred embodied by the sovereign. ..."
"... Can the World be Wrong ..."
"... "Even mature democracies show signs of degenerating into their illiberal namesakes. The historical record confirms that peaceful, prosperous, free and harmonious societies can best be nurtured by the widest possible distribution of all forms of power -- political, economic, educational, scientific, technological and social -- to the greatest extent to the greatest number. The aspiration for individual freedom can only be realized and preserved when it is married with the right to social equality. The mutual interdependence of the individual and the collective is the key to their reconciliation and humanity's future. ..."
"... Beset by stagnant wage growth, less than half of respondents in America, Britain and France believe that globalisation is a "force for good" in the world. Westerners also say the world is getting worse. Even Americans, generally an optimistic lot, are feeling blue: just 11% believe the world has improved in the past year. The turn towards nationalism is especially pronounced in France, the cradle of liberty. Some 52% of the French now believe that their economy should not have to rely on imports, and just 13% reckon that immigration has a positive effect on their country. France is divided as to whether or not multiculturalism is something to be embraced. Such findings will be music to the ears of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, France's nationalist, Eurosceptic party. Current (and admittedly early) polling has her tied for first place in the 2017 French presidential race. ..."
"... "Populism is not Fascism: But it could be a Harbinger" ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... Structural Exploitation under the Neoliberal Social Contract ..."
"... "a property of institutions or systems in which the "rules of the game" unfairly benefit one group of people to the detriment of another" ..."
"... The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere ..."
"... The Trickle Down Delusion ..."
"... "Real hourly compensation of production, nonsupervisory workers who make up 80 percent of the workforce, also shows pay stagnation for most of the period since 1973, rising 9.2 percent between 1973 and 2014.Net productivity grew 1.33 percent each year between 1973 and 2014, faster than the meager 0.20 percent annual rise in median hourly compensation. In essence, about 15 percent of productivity growth between 1973 and 2014 translated into higher hourly wages and benefits for the typical American worker. Since 2000, the gap between productivity and pay has risen even faster. The net productivity growth of 21.6 percent from 2000 to 2014 translated into just a 1.8 percent rise in inflation-adjusted compensation for the median worker (just 8 percent of net productivity growth).Since 2000, more than 80 percent of the divergence between a typical (median) worker's pay growth and overall net productivity growth has been driven by rising inequality (specifically, greater inequality of compensation and a falling share of income going to workers relative to capital owners).Over the entire 1973–2014 period, rising inequality explains over two-thirds of the productivity–pay divergence. ..."
"... "Understanding the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker's Pay Why It Matters and Why It's Real" ..."
"... "The fact that our society places no limit on wealth while making it accessible to all helps account for the 'feverish' quality Tocqueville sensed in American civilization." Culture Against Man ..."
"... Neoliberal Hegemony ..."
"... Toward a 21st Century Social Contract" ..."
"... "A 21 st Century Social Contract" ..."
"... "The nature of work is changing very rapidly. Old models of lifelong employment via business and a predictable safety net provided by government are no longer assured in a new demographic, economic, and political environment. We see these trends most clearly in the rise of the "gig economy," in which contingent workers (freelancers, independent contractors, consultants, or other outsourced and non-permanent workers) are hired on a temporary or part-time basis. These workers make up more than 90 percent of new job creation in European countries, and by 2020, it is estimated that more than 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be in contingent jobs." ..."
"... " Turning the Social Contract Inside Out: Neoliberal Governance and Human Capital in Two Days, One Night" ..."
"... 'knowledge based economy' ..."
"... "The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, pulled out all 43,060 multinational corporations and the share ownerships linking them to construct a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.The model revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, the "real" economy, representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a super-entity of 147 even more tightly knit companies (all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity) that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network." ..."
"... "Neoliberalism and technology: Perpetual innovation or perpetual crisis?" ..."
"... Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism ..."
"... "The Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism" ..."
"... "Neoliberalism was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the University of Chicago into a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the totalitarian state and the socialist state but also (and especially) against the New Deal regulatory and welfare state. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll back the status quo and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize) the "natural" principles of the market. But the contradiction between its individualist ideals and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth, intense inequality, and coercion. And when the ideological support of a system collapses -- as appears to be happening with neoliberalism -- then either the system will collapse, or new levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain it. This appears to be the juncture at which we have arrived." ..."
"... lumpenproletariat ..."
"... "Sociology and the Critique of Neoliberalism" ..."
"... The Social Nature of Cryptocurrencies ..."
"... The Denationalization of Money ..."
"... Austerity: The Lived Experience ..."
"... Neoliberalism, Economic Radicalism, and the Normalization of Violence ..."
"... "Over the past twenty years, the IMF has been strengthened enormously. Thanks to the debt crisis and the mechanism of conditionality, it has moved from balance of payments support to being quasi-universal dictator of so-called "sound" economic policies, meaning of course neo-liberal ones. The World Trade Organisation was finally put in place in January 1995 after long and laborious negotiations, often rammed through parliaments which had little idea what they were ratifying. Thankfully, the most recent effort to make binding and universal neo-liberal rules, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, has failed, at least temporarily. It would have given all rights to corporations, all obligations to governments and no rights at all to citizens. The common denominator of these institutions is their lack of transparency and democratic accountability. This is the essence of neo-liberalism. It claims that the economy should dictate its rules to society, not the other way around. Democracy is an encumbrance, neo-liberalism is designed for winners, not for voters who, necessarily encompass the categories of both winners and losers." ..."
"... "When elected governments break the "representative covenant" and show complete indifference to the sufferings of citizens, when democracy is downgraded to an abstract set of rules and deprived of meaning for much of the citizenry, many will be inclined to regard democracy as a sham, to lose confidence in and withdraw their support for electoral institutions. Dissatisfaction with democracy now ranges from 40 percent in Peru and Bolivia to 59 percent in Brazil and 62 percent in Colombia. ..."
"... Exploitation; What is it and why it is Wrong ..."
"... Shadow Sovereigns: How Global Corporations are seizing Power ..."
"... Publics around the globe are generally unhappy with the functioning of their nations' political systems. Across the 36 countries asked the question, a global median of 46% say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the way their democracy is working, compared with 52% who are not too or not at all satisfied. Levels of satisfaction vary considerably by region and within regions. Overall, people in the Asia-Pacific region are the most happy with their democracies. At least half in five of the six Asian nations where this question was asked express satisfaction. Only in South Korea is a majority unhappy (69%). ..."
"... Communication and the Globalization of Culture ..."
"... Class Politics and the Radical Right ..."
"... In 2012 the United States spent an estimated 19.4% of GDP on such social expenditures, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based industrial country think tank. Denmark spent 30.5%, Sweden 28.2% and Germany 26.3%. All of these nations have a lower central government debt to GDP ratio than that of the United States. Why the United States invests relatively less in its social safety net than many other countries and why those expenditures are even at risk in the current debate over debt reduction reflect Americans' conflicted, partisan and often contradictory views on fairness, inequality, the role and responsibility of government and individuals in society and the efficacy of government action. Rooted in value differences, not just policy differences, the debate over the U.S. social contract is likely to go on long after the fiscal cliff issue has been resolved." ..."
"... Popper, Hayek and the Open Society ..."
"... Social Exclusion, Popular Resistanceand the Future of Neoliberalism ..."
"... Social Exclusion ..."
"... London Labour and the London Poor ..."
"... The German Ideology ..."
"... "Labour Relations and Social Movements in the 21st Century" ..."
"... "The panorama of a deep economic crisis which in the last few decades has hit Europe and its Welfare state in particular has had an unprecedented impact on employment and social policies. The neoliberal model and the effects of deregulated and global finance not only question the "European social model" but push sectors of the labour force – with the youngest and well-qualified being prominent – into unemployment or precarious jobs. the sociological and potential socio-political significance of these actionsparticularly as a result of the interconnections that such movements express, both in the sphere of the workplace and industrial system or whether with broader social structures, with special emphasis on the middle classes and the threats of 'proletarianization' that presently hang over them. labour relations of our time are crossed by precariousness and by a new and growing "precariat" which also gave rise to new social movements and new forms of activism and protest." ..."
"... Personal Insolvency in the 21st Century: A Comparative Analysis of the US and Europe, ..."
"... "Working-class participation, middle-class aspiration? Value, upward mobility and symbolic indebtedness in higher education."The Sociological Review ..."
"... The Financialization of Capitalism: 'Profiting without producing' ..."
"... European Network and Debt and Development ..."
"... "Do you enjoy rising prices? Everybody talks about commodities – with the Agriculture Euro Fund you can benefit from the increase in value of the seven most important agricultural commodities." With this advertisement the Deutsche Bankt tried in spring 2008 to attract clients for one of its investment funds. At the same time, there were hunger revolts in Haiti, Cameroon and other developing countries, because many poor could no longer pay the exploding food prices. In fact, between the end of 2006 and March 2008 the prices for the seven most important commodities went up by 71 per cent on average, for rice and grain the increase was 126 per cent. The poor are most hit by the hike in prices. Whereas households in industrialised countries spend 10 -20 per cent for food, in low-income countries they spend 60 – 80 per cent. As a result, the World Bank forecasts an increase in the number of people falling below the absolute poverty line by more than 100 million. Furthermore, the price explosion has negative macroeconomic effects: deterioration of the balance of payment, fuelling inflation and new debt." ..."
"... Makers and Takers: How Wall Street Destroyed Main Street ..."
"... "The Politics of Public Debt: Neoliberalism, capitalist development, and the restructuring of the state", ..."
"... "Why should the new oligarchs be interested in their countries' future productive capacities and present democratic stability if, apparently, they can be rich without it, processing back and forth the synthetic money produced for them at no cost by a central bank for which the sky is the limit, at each stage diverting from it hefty fees and unprecedented salaries, bonuses and profits as long as it is forthcoming -- and then leave their country to its remaining devices and withdraw to some privately owned island? ..."
"... Neoliberalism and the Making of the Subprime Borrower ..."
"... The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal Condition ..."
"... Debt: the First 5000 Years ..."
"... "Torturing the Poor, German-Style" ..."
"... "Germany's chancellor [Gerhard] Schröder (SPD) –known as the "Comrade of the Bosses"– no longer sought to integrate labour into capitalism, at least not the Lumpenproletariat or ..."
"... . These sections of society are now deliberately driven into mass poverty, joining the growing number of working poor on a scale not seen in Germany perhaps since the 1930s." ..."
"... Alternative fur Deutchland ..."
"... Grassroots Resistance to Neoliberalism ..."
"... Homeless Workers' Movement and Landless Workers' Movement), ..."
"... (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional, EZLN), ..."
"... (Fanmi Lavalas) ..."
"... (Narmada Bachao Andolan). ..."
"... "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor" ..."
"... "100 countries have undergone grave economic decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes 20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993." ..."
"... Democracy against Neoliberalism in Argentina and Brazil, ..."
"... Double Jeopardy: The Impact of Neoliberalism on Care Workers in the United States and South Africa" ..."
"... The BRICS: Challenges to the Global Status Quo" ..."
"... Landless Workers Movement ..."
"... Partido dos Trabalhadores ..."
"... The Drug War in Mexico: Hegemony and Global Capitalism ..."
"... Justice in El Barrio ..."
"... Black Lives Matter ..."
"... Occupy Wall Street ..."
"... 'De-democratization' under Neoliberalism ..."
"... Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution ..."
"... "If the core of neoliberalism is a natural fact, as suggested by the ideology already embedded deep within our collective psyche, who can change it? Can you live without breathing, or stop the succession of days and nights? This is why Western democracy chooses among the many masks behind which is essentially the same liberal party. Change is not forbidden, change is impossible. Some consider this feature to be an insidious form of invisible totalitarianism. ..."
"... "The unholy alliance of neoliberalism and postmodernism" ..."
"... "undermine the immune system of society, neoliberalism by commercialization of even the most sacred domains and postmodernism by its super-relativism and refusal to recognize any hierarchy in value or belief systems." ..."
"... "Neoliberalism as Political Theology of Chance: the politics of divination." ..."
"... Revoking the Moral Order: The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle ..."
"... "Neoliberalism and its Threat to Moral Agency" ..."
"... Virtue and Economy ..."
"... The Neoliberal Pattern of Domination: Capital's Reign in Decline, ..."
"... The Future of Neoliberalism ..."
"... Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession and the Uses and Misuses of History ..."
"... Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization ..."
"... Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization ..."
"... Christian Science Monitor ..."
"... "Worldwide, it has been a rough years for democracy. The UK, the United States and Colombia made critical decisions about their nations' future, and – at least from the perspective of liberal values and social justice – they decided poorly. Beyond the clear persistence of racism, sexism and xenophobia in people's decision-making, scholars and pundits have argued that to understand the results of recent popular votes, we must reflect on neoliberalism. International capitalism, which has dominated the globe for the past three decades, has its winners and its losers. And, for many thinkers, the losers have spoken. My fieldwork in South America has taught me that there are alternative and effective ways to push back against neoliberalism. These include resistance movements based on pluralism and alternative forms of social organisation, production and consumption." ..."
"... Neoliberalism, Social Exclusion, and Social Movements ..."
"... The Politics of Thatcherism ..."
"... "The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics" ..."
"... "A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers." ..."
The
creation of large enterprises gave rise not only to an organized labor movement, but to a
larger bureaucratic regulatory state with agencies intended to help stabilize and grow
capitalism while keeping the working class loyal to the social contract. Crisis in public
confidence resulted not only from economic recessions and depressions built into the economy,
but the contradictions capitalism was fostering in society as the benefits in advances in
industry, science and technology accrued to the wealthy while the social structure remained
hierarchical.
Ever since 1947 when the ideological father of neoliberalism Friedrich von Hayek called a
conference in Mont Pelerin to address how the new ideology would replace Keynesianism,
neoliberals have been promising to address these contradictions, insisting that eliminating the
social welfare state and allowing complete market dominationthat would result in society's
modernization and would filter down to all social classes and nations both developed and
developing. Such thinking is rooted in the modernization theory that emerged after WWII when
the US took advantage of its preeminent global power to impose a transformation model on much
of the non-Communist world. Cold War liberal economist Walt Rostow articulated the
modernization model of development in his work entitled The Stages of Economic Growth: A
Non-Communist Manifesto , 1960. By the 1970s, neoliberals adapted Rostow's modernization
theory as their bible and the core of the social contract. (Evans Rubara, "Uneven
Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality"
The challenge for the political class has always been and remains to mobilize a popular base
that would afford legitimacy to the social contract. The issue for mainstream political parties
is not whether there is a systemic problem with the social contract intended to serve the
capitalist class, but the degree to which the masses can be co-opted through various methods to
support the status quo. "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on
higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've
moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a
hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has
grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social
contract might be."
Considering that Keynesianism and neoliberalism operate under the same social structure and
differ only on how best to achieve capital formation while retaining sociopolitical conformity,
the article above published in The Atlantic illustrates how analysts/commentators
easily misinterpret nuances within a social contract for the covenant's macro goals. A similar
view as that expressed in The Atlantic is also reflected in the New America
Foundation's publications, identifying specific aspects of Arthur Schlesinger's Cold War
militarist policies enmeshed with social welfare Keynesianism as parts of the evolving social
contract.
Identifying the social contract with a specific set of policies under different
administrations evolving to reflect the nuances of political class and economic elites,some
analysts contend that there is a European Union-wide social contract to which nationally-based
social contracts must subordinate their sovereignty. This model has evolved to accommodate
neoliberal globalism through regional trade blocs on the basis of a 'patron-client'integration
relationship between core and periphery countries.
A European export and integral part of cultural hegemony in the non-Western world, the
liberal-bourgeois social contract for the vast majority of Africans has failed to deliver on
the promise of socioeconomic development, social justice and national sovereignty since
independence from colonial rule. Just as in Africa, the Asian view of the social contract is
that it entails a liberal model of government operating within the capitalist system rather
than taking into account social justice above all else. Embracing pluralism and diversity while
shedding aspects of authoritarian capitalism associated with cronyism and the clientist state,
the view of the Asian social contract is to subordinate society to neoliberal global
integration and work within the framework of Western-established institutions. In each country,
traditions governing social and political relationships underlie the neoliberal model. (Sanya
Osha, The Social Contract in Africa , 2014;
Despite far reaching implications for society and despite the political and business class
keen awareness of neoliberalism, most people around the world are almost as perplexed by the
term neoliberalism as they are with social contract theory that is outside the public debate
confined to the domain of political philosophy. Many associate neoliberalism withRonald Reagan
supporter Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago School', rarely mentioning the political dimension
of the economic philosophy and its far-reaching implications for all segments of society. In an
article entitled "Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems" The
Guardian columnist George Monbiot raised a few basic questions about the degree to which
the public is misinformed when it comes to the neoliberal social contract under which society
operates.
" Neoliberalism: do you know what it is? Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of
its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown
of 2007-2008, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a
glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the
epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to
these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either
catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had
– a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?
Advocates of neoliberalism, both from the pluralist-social welfare wing and the rightwing
populist camp, have succeeded in institutionalizing the new social contract which has
transformed the historically classical notion of individual freedombased on the Enlightenment
concept of natural rights into freedom of capitalist hegemony over the state and society.
Whether operating under the political/ideological umbrella of pluralism-environmentalism in
Western nations, combined with some version of a Keynesian social welfare pluralist model, with
rightwing populism or authoritarianism in one-party state, political and corporate elites
advancing the neoliberal model share the same goal with regard to capital formation and
mainstream institutions.
Weakening the social welfare corporatist state model by reaching political consensus among
mainstream political parties by the late 1980s-early 1990s, whether operating under a
centrist-pluralist or conservative party, neoliberals have been using the combination of
massive deregulation with the state providing a bailout mechanism when crisis hits; fiscal
policy that transfers income from workers and the middle class – raising the public debt
to transfer wealth from the bottom 90% to the wealthiest 10% -; providing corporate subsidies
and bailouts; and privatizing public projects and services at an immense cost to the declining
living standards for the middle class and workers.
As much in the US as in other developed nations beginning in the 1980s, the neoliberal state
has become status quo by intentionally weakening the social welfare state and redefining the
social contract throughout the world. Working with large banks and multilateral institutions
such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank that use loans as leverage to
impose neoliberal policies around the world in debtor nations desperate to raise capital for
the state and attract direct foreign investment, the advanced capitalist countries impose the
neoliberal social contract on the world.
As reflected in the integrated global economy, the neoliberal model was imbedded in IMF
stabilization and World Bank development loans since the late 1940s. After the energy crisis of
the mid-1970s and the revolutions in Iran and Nicaragua in 1979, international developments
that took place amid US concerns about the economy under strain from rising balance payments
deficits that could not accommodate both 'military Keynesianism' (deficit spending on defense
as a means of boosting the economy) and the social welfare system, neoliberalism under the
corporate welfare state emerged as the best means to continue strengthening capitalism. (J. M.
Cypher, "From Military Keynesianism to Global-Neoliberal Militarism" , Monthly
Review Vol. 59, No. 2, 2007; Jason Hickel, A Short History ofNeoliberalism ,
Everything from government agencies whose role is strengthening capital, to public schools
and hospitals emulating the market-based management model and treating patients and students as
customers, the neoliberal goal is comprehensive market domination of society. Advocates of the
neoliberal social contract no longer conceal their goals behind rhetoric about
liberal-democratic ideals of individual freedom and the state as an arbiter to harmonize the
interests of social classes. The market unequivocally imposes its hegemony not just over the
state but on all institutions, subordinating peoples' lives to market forces and equating those
forces with democracy and national sovereignty. In pursuit of consolidating the neoliberal
model on a world scale, the advocates of this ideology subordinate popular sovereignty and
popular consent from which legitimacy of the state emanates to capital. http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/introren.htm
As an integral part of the social environment and hegemonic culture reflecting the
hierarchical class structure and values based on marginalization, the neoliberal social
contract has become institutionalized in varying degrees reflecting the more integrative nature
of capitalism after the fall of the Communist bloc coinciding with China's increased global
economic integration. Emboldened that there was no competing ideology from any government
challenging capitalism, neoliberals aggressively pursued globalization under the
deregulation-corporate welfare anti-labor model.
Some countries opted for mixed policies with a dose of quasi-statist policies as in the case
of China. Others retained many aspects of the social welfare state as in the case of EU
members, while some pursue authoritarian capitalism within a pluralistic model. Still other
nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia where pluralism and multi-party traditions are not
very strong, neoliberal policies are tailored to clientist politics and crony capitalism. In
all cases, 'market omnipotence theory' is the catalyst under the umbrella of the neoliberal
social contract.
Ideology, the Neoliberal State, and the Social Contract
Just as religion was universally intertwined with identity, projection of self-image in the
community and the value system in the Age of Faith (500-1500), secular ideology in the modern
world fulfills somewhat a similar goal. Although neoliberalism has been criticized as a secular
religion precisely because of its dogmatism regarding market fundamentalism, especially after
2013 when Pope Francis dismissed it as idolatry of money that attempts to gloss over abject
socioeconomic inequality on a world scale, capitalistsand the political class around the world
have embraced some aspects if not wholeheartedly neoliberal ideology.
https://economicsociology.org/2014/12/25/pope-francis-against-neoliberalism-finance-capitalism-consumerism-and-inequality/
In the early 21 st century arguments equating the rich with societal progress and
vilifying the poor as social stigma indicative of individual failure are no different than
arguments raised by apologists of capitalism in the early 19 th century when the
British Parliament was debating how to punish the masses of poor that the industrial revolution
had created. In defending tax cuts to the wealthy, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley stated:
"I think not having theestate taxrecognizes the people
that are investing -- as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have,
whether it's on booze or women or movies."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/grassley-estate-taxes-booze-women_us_5a247d89e4b03c44072e5a04
; The US senator's argument could easily be heard in early 19 th century England.
Blaming the poor for structural poverty which capitalism causes has become widespreadsince the
early 1980s. This is because of government efforts to dismantle the welfare state as a social
safety net and transfer resources for tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals. https://www.globalresearch.ca/blaming-the-poor-for-poverty/535675
Rooted in classical liberal ideology, neoliberalism rests on laissez-faire and social
Darwinist principles that affirm societal progress as defined by materialist self-interest.
Because private financial gain is the sole measure of success and virtue, neoliberals demand
that the state and international organizations must remove impediments to capital
accumulationnationally and internationally no matter the consequences to the non-propertied
classes. Aiming for more than mere mechanical compliance, the goal of the ideology is to create
the illusion of the neoliberal self that lives, breathes, and actualizes neoliberal myths in
every aspect of life from a person as a worker to consumer and citizen.
Jim Mcguigan argues that "the transition from organised capitalism to neoliberal
hegemony over the recent period has brought about a corresponding transformation in
subjectivity. Leading celebrities, most notably high-tech entrepreneurs, for instance, operate
in the popular imagination as models of achievement for the aspiring young. They are seldom
emulated in real life, however, even unrealistically so. Still, their famed lifestyles and
heavily publicised opinions provide guidelines to appropriate conduct in a ruthlessly
competitive and unequal world." (Jim McGuigan: 'The Neoliberal Self',Culture Unbound,
Volume 6, 2014; http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v6/a13/cu14v6a13.pdf
By offering the illusion of integration to those that the social structure has marginalized
while trying to indoctrinate the masses that the corporate state is salvation and the welfare
state is the enemy to default all of society's problems, the neoliberal ideology has captured
the imagination of many in the middle class and even some in the working class not just in the
West but around the world and especially in former Communist bloc countries where people
entertained an idealized version of bourgeois liberal society. (S. Gill, "Pessimism of
Intelligence, Optimism of Will" in Perspectives on Gramsci , ed. by Joseph
Francene 2009)
Similar to liberalism in so far as it offers something for which to hope, neoliberalism is a
departure when it decries the state as an obstacle to capitalist growth not only because of
regulatory mechanisms and as an arbiter in society that must placate the masses with social
programs, but even as a centralized entity determining monetary and fiscal policy. Proponents
of neoliberalism demand turning back the clock to the ideology that prevailed among capitalists
and their political supporters at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution when there were no
state mechanisms to regulate labor conditions, mining operations and the environment, food and
drugs, etc. From a dogmatic market fundamentalist perspective, the market transcends national
borders and supersedes the state, thus the principal form of governance revolves around
furthering capital accumulation.
Not only is there an absence of a social conscience not so different than what prevailed in
the nascent phase of industrial capitalism, but there is disdain of social responsibility on
the part of capital beyond the realm of tax-deductible charity donations and voluntarism. More
significant, neoliberals believe that capital is entitled to appropriate whatever possible from
society because the underlying assumption of corporate welfare entitlement is built into the
neoliberal ideology that identifies the national interest with capital and labor as the enemy
of capital accumulation. (K. Farnsworth, Social vs. Corporate Welfare , 2012)
The irony in all of this is that in 2008 the world experienced the largest and deepest
recession since the 1930s precisely because of neoliberal policies. However, its advocates
insisted that the recession was causedwe did not have enough deregulation, privatization,
corporate welfare and low taxes on capital rather than going too far with such an extreme
ideology whose legal and illegal practices that led to the global recession. Even more ironic
neoliberal ideology blames the state – central banks, legislative branch and regulatory
agencies – rather than the economic system for the cyclical crisis.
https://cgd.leeds.ac.uk/events/2008-global-financial-crisis-in-a-long-term-perspective-the-failure-of-neo-liberalism-and-the-future-of-capitalism-2/
Because the state puts the interests of a tiny percentage of the population above the rest
of society, it is a necessary structure only in so far as it limits its role to promoting
capital formation by using any means to achieve the goal. Whether under a pluralistic-diversity
political model or an authoritarian one, neoliberalism is anti-democratic because as Riad Azar
points out, "The common denominator is the empowering of elites over the masses with the
assistance of international forces through military action or financial coercion -- a
globalized dialectic of ruling classes."
From conservative and liberal to self-described Socialist, political parties around the
world have moved ideologically farther to the right in order to accommodate neoliberalism as
part of their platform. The challenge of the political class is to keep people loyal to the
neoliberal ideology; a challenge that necessarily forces political parties to be eclectic in
choosing aspects of other ideological camps that appeal to voters. While embracing corporate
welfare, decrying social welfare is among the most glaring neoliberal contradiction of an
ideology that ostensibly celebrates non-state intervention in the private sector. This
contradiction alone forces neoliberal politicians of all stripes and the media to engage in
mass distraction and to use everything from identity politics ideologies to cult of
personality,and culture wars and 'clash of civilization' theories.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/How-the-Democrats-Became-The-Party-of-Neoliberalism-20141031-0002.html
;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/paul-emery/why-on-earth-would-socialists-support-neoliberal-undemocratic-eu
To justify why self-proclaimed socialist and democratic parties have embraced neoliberalism,
many academics have provided a wide range of theories which have in fact helped solidify the
neoliberal ideology into the political mainstream. Among the countless people swept up by the
enthusiasm of the Communist bloc's fall and China's integration into the world capitalist
economy, Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology (2000), argued that the world returned to
old religious and ethnic conflicts around which ideologies of the new century were molded.
Encouraged by China's integration into the global capitalist system, in September 2006 Bell
wrote : "It's the end of ideology in China. Not the end of all ideology, but the end of
Marxist ideology. China has many social problems, but the government and its people will deal
with them in pragmatic ways, without being overly constrained by ideological boundaries. I
still think there's a need for a moral foundation for political rule in China – some sort
of guiding ideal for the future – but it won't come from Karl Marx."https://prezi.com/kha1ketnfjtd/ideology-in-everyday-life/
Such hasty pronouncements and others in works like Francis Fukuyama's The End of
History expressed the Western bourgeois sense of relief of an integrated world under the
Western-dominated neoliberal ideology that would somehow magically solve problems the Cold War
had created. While Bell, Fukuyama and others celebrated the triumphant era of neoliberal
ideology, they hardly dealt with the realities that ideology in peoples' lives emanates from
mainstream institutions manifesting irreconcilable contradictions. A product molded by the
hegemonic political culture, neoliberal ideology has been a factor in keeping the majority in
conformity while a small minority is constantly seeking outlets of social resistance, some
within the neoliberal rightwing political mold.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/21/bring-back-ideology-fukuyama-end-history-25-years-on
As catalyst to mobilize the masses, nationalism remains a strong aspect of ideological
indoctrination that rightwing populist neoliberals have used blaming immigrants, Muslims,
women, gays, environmentalists, and minorities for structural problems society confronts
resulting from the political economy. Although there are different political approaches about
how best to achieve neoliberal goals, ideological indoctrination has always played an essential
role in keeping people loyal to the social contract. However, the contradiction in neoliberal
ideology is the need for a borderless world and the triumph of capital over the nation-state
while state policies harmonize disparate capitalist interests within the nation-state and
beyond it. If neoliberal ideology tosses aside nationalism then it deprives itself of a
mechanism to mobilize the masses behind it. https://left-flank.org/2011/01/16/the-curious-marriage-of-neoliberalism-and-nationalism/
Arguing that the 'Ideological State Apparatuses' (ISA) such as religious and educational
institutions among others in the private sector perpetuate the ideology of the status quo,
Louis Pierre Althusser captured the essence of state mechanisms to mobilize the masses.
However, ideology is by no means the sole driving force in keeping people loyal to the social
contract. While peoples' material concerns often dictate their ideological orientation, it
would be hasty to dismiss the role of the media along with hegemonic cultural influences deeply
ingrained into society shaping peoples' worldview and keeping them docile.
Building on Althusser's theory of how the state maintains the status quo, Goran Therborn (
Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology , 1999) argues that the neoliberal state
uses ideological domination as a mechanism to keep people compliant. Combined with the state's
repressive mechanisms – police and armed forces – the ideological apparatus
engenders conformity wherein exploitation and repression operate within the boundaries that the
state defines as 'legal', thus 'normal' for society. A desirable goal of regimes ranging from
parliamentary to Mussolini's Fascist Italy (1922-1943) and clerical Fascism under Antonio de
Oliveira Salazar's Portugal (1932-1968), legalized repressive mechanisms have become an
integral part of neoliberal ideological domination.
The unchecked role of neoliberal capitalism in every aspect of the social fabric runs the
risk of at the very least creating massive social, economic and political upheaval as was the
case with the great recession of 2008 preceded by two decades of neoliberal capitalism taking
precedence over the welfare regulatory state whose role is to secure and/or retain equilibrium
in global markets. In The Great Transformation , (1944)", Karl Polanyi argued that:
"To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their
natural environment would result in the demolition of society."
Because Polanyi lived through the Great Depression era of the New Deal and the rise and fall
of the Axis Powers, he was optimistic that a return to the 1920s would not take root after
WWII. Polanyi accepted Hegel's view of the social contract that the state preserves society by
safeguarding general or universal interests against particular ones. However, we have been
witnessing the kind of demolition of society Polanyi feared because of unchecked market forces.
This is in part because the demise of the Communist bloc and the rise of China as a major
economic power emboldened advocates of neoliberal ideology.
With the realization of US long road to decline at the end of the Vietnam War, neoliberal
elites prevailed that the crisis of American leadership could be met with the elimination of
Keynesian ideology and the adoption of neoliberalism as tested by the Chicago School in Chile
under the US-backed dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990. That the neoliberal
ideology became an experiment tested in a US-backed military dictatorship in South America is
itself revealing about what the nature of the social contract once implemented even in
pluralistic societies where there was popular and political support for Keynesianism.
Characteristic of a developing nation like Chile was external dependence and a weak state
structure, thus easily manipulated by domestic and foreign capital interested in deregulation
and further weakening of the public sector as the core of the social contract.
"The withering away of national states and the wholesale privatization of state-owned
enterprises and state-administered services transferred highly profitable monopolies to
capitalists, and guaranteed the repayment of the foreign debt-contracted, as in Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay-by irresponsible, corrupt, and de facto military rulers.
Neoliberalism supplied the general justification for the transfer of public assets and
state-owned enterprises, paid for with public savings, even in areas considered "taboo" and
untouchable until a few years ago, such as electricity, aviation, oil, or
telecommunications. (Atilio A. Boron, "Democracy or Neoliberalism?"http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR21.5/boron.html
Advocating the systematic dismantling of the social welfare state in the name of upholding
the virtues of individualism while strengthening of corporate welfare capitalism in the name of
economic growth on global scale, advocates of neoliberal ideology were emboldened by the
absence of a competing ideology after the fall of the Soviet bloc and China's capitalist
integration. As the income gap widened and globalization resulted in surplus labor force amid
downward pressure on wages, a segment of the social and political elites embraced a rightwing
populist ideology as a means of achieving the neoliberal goals in cases where the pluralist
ideological model was not working. The failure of neoliberal policies led some political and
business elites to embrace rightwing populism in order to save neoliberalism that had lost
support among a segment of society because of its association with centrist and reformist
cultural-diversity pluralist neoliberals. This trend continues to gain momentum exposing the
similarities between neoliberalism and Fascism. (David Zamora, "When Exclusion Replaces
Exploitation: The Condition of the Surplus-Population under Neoliberalism"http://nonsite.org/feature/when-exclusion-replaces-exploitation.
Neoliberalism and Fascism
The role of the state
Unprecedented for a former president, on 10 December 2017 Barak Obama warned Americans not
to follow a Nazi path. A clear reference to president Trump and the Republican Party leading
America in that direction with rhetoric and policies that encourage 'culture war' (
kulturkampf – struggle between varieties of rightwingers from evangelicals to
neo-Nazis against secular liberals), Obama made reference to socioeconomic polarization at the
root of political polarization.
"The combination of economic disruption, cultural disruption ― nothing feels solid
to people ― that's a recipe for people wanting to find security somewhere. And sadly,
there's something in all of us that looks for simple answers when we're agitated and insecure.
The narrative that America at its best has stood for, the narrative of pluralism and tolerance
and democracy and rule of law, human rights and freedom of the press and freedom of religion,
that narrative, I think, is actually the more powerful narrative. The majority of people around
the world aspire to that narrative, which is the reason people still want to come here."
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-warns-americans-against-following-in-the-path-of-nazi
germany_us_5a2c032ce4b0a290f0512487
Warning about the road to Nazism, Obama drew distinctions between the Democratic Party's
brand of pluralist neoliberalism and Trump's rightwing populist model. Naturally, Obama did not
mention that both models seek the same goals, or that policies for which he and his predecessor
Bill Clinton pursued drove a segment of the population toward the authoritarian neoliberal
model that offers the illusion of realizing the American Dream. Distancing themselves from
neo-Fascists, mainstream European political leaders embracing the pluralist model under
neoliberalism have been as condemnatory as Obama of rightwing populism's pursuit of 'culture
war' as a precursor to Fascism.
Accusing Trump of emboldening varieties of neo-Fascists not just in the US and EU but around
the globe, European neoliberal pluralists ignored both the deep roots of Fascism in Europe and
their own policies contributing to the rise of neo-Fascism. Just as with Obama and his fellow
Democrats, European neoliberal pluralists draw a very sharp distinction between their version
of neoliberalism and rightwing populism that either Trump or Hungary's Viktor Orban pursue.
Neoliberal pluralists argue that rightwing populists undercut globalist integration principles
by stressing economic nationalism although it was right nationalists Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan that engaged in wholesale implantation of neoliberal policies.
https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2017/02/28/the-myths-of-far-right-populism-orbans-fence-and-trumps-wall/
Rightwing populism under Ronald Reagan as the first president to implement neoliberal
policies emerged as a reaction to the prospect that the Western-basedcore of capitalism was
weakening as a result of a multi-polar world economy. Whereas in the middle of the 20
th century the US enjoyed balance of payments surpluses and was a net creditor with
the dollar as the world's strongest reserve currency and the world's strongest manufacturing
sector, in 2017 the US is among the earth's largest debtor nations with chronic balance of
payments deficits, a weak dollar with a bleak future and an economy based more on parasitic
financial speculation and massive defense-related spending and less on productive sectors that
are far more profitable in Asia and developing nations with low labor costs. (Jon Kofas,
Independence from America: Global Integration and Inequality , 2005, 40-54)
Exerting enormous influence by exporting its neoliberal ideological, political, economic and
cultural influence throughout the world, the US-imposed transformation model has resulted in
economic hardships and political and social instability in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
Institutionalizing neoliberalism under rightwing populism and using Trump as the pretext to do
so, the US is leading nations around the world to move closer to neo-Fascism, thus exposing
neoliberalism as totalitarian.The recognition by the political class and business class that
over-accumulation is only possible by continued downward wage pressure has been a key reason
that a segment of the population not just in the US but across EU has supported populist
rightwing and/or neo-fascists.
Rejecting the claim of any similarities between neoliberalism and Fascism, neoliberal
apologists take pride that their apparent goal is to weaken the state, by which they mean the
Keynesian welfare state, not the 'military Keynesian' and corporate welfare state. By contrast,
Fascists advocated a powerful state – everything within the state, nothing outside
the state, nothing against the state. American neoliberals of both the pluralist and
rightwing camps have created a societal model not just in one nation like Mussolini and Hitler
but globally with the result of: "everything within neoliberalism, nothing against
neoliberalism, nothing outside neoliberalism.
Neoliberal totalitarianism finds different expression in the US than in India, in Hungary
than in Israel. In " Neoliberal Fascism: Free Markets and the Restructuring of Indian
Capitalism," Shankar Gopalakrishnan observed that exclusive Hindu nationalism has been the
catalyst for rightwing neoliberalism to mobilize popular support. "Hindutva [ a term
coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 to assert exclusive Hindu dominance] is seen as
an effort by neoliberalism, or perhaps more broadly by capitalism, to divert attention from
class conflict, to divide and weaken working class struggles and to deflect class-driven
anxieties on to minority communities. This approach is problematic in two senses. First, it
does not explain why Hindutva organisations are able to develop a mass base, except to the
extent that they are seen to be appealing to "historical identity" or "emotive" issues.The state exists only as the expression and guarantor of a collectivity founded
around a transcendent principle : The ideal state is the guarantor of the Hindu
rashtra, a "nation" that exists as an organic and harmonious unity between "Hindus."
Whereas under Ronald Reagan's neoliberal populist policies (Reaganism) under a rightwing
political umbrella the state structure was strengthened in the US, in the process of
implementing neoliberal policies state bureaucratic functions have been outsourced to private
companies thus keeping with the spirit of corporate-welfare goals. Other countries followed a
path similar to the one of the US. Contrary to the claims of many neoliberal scholars,
politicians and commentators, neoliberalism has not weakened the state simply because the
ideology lays claims to a hegemonic private sector and weak state. It is true that the
Keynesian-welfare state structure has been weakened while the
corporate-welfare-militarist-police-state structure has been strengthened. However, in the less
developed capitalist countries the public sector has weakened as a result of the US and EU
imposing the neoliberal model which drains the public sector of any leverage in stimulating
economic and social development investment because of the transfer of public assets and public
services to the private sector.( http://jgu.edu.in/article/indias-neoliberal-path-perdition
; Monica Prasad, The Politics of Free Markets , 2006)
Gaspar Miklos Tamas, a Romanian political philosopher of the George Lukacs-inspired Budapest
School, argues that global division of labor in the neoliberal era has not only resulted in
wealth transfer from the bottom up but it has diminished national sovereignty and citizenship
for those in less developed (periphery) nations. "The new dual sate is alive and well:
Normative State for the core populations of the capitalist center, and another State of
arbitrary decrees for the non-citizens who are the rest. Unlike in classical fascism, this
second State is only dimly visible from the first. The radical critique protesting that liberty
within the Normative State is an illusion, although understandable, is erroneous. The denial of
citizenship based not on exploitation, oppression and straightforward discrimination, but on
mere exclusion and distance, is difficult to grasp, because the mental habits of liberation
struggle for a more just redistribution of goods and powers are not applicable. The problem is
not that the Normative State is becoming more authoritarian: rather, that it belongs only to a
few."https://www.opendemocracy.net/people-newright/article_306.jsp
If the normative state is the domain of the very few with the rest under the illusion of
inclusion, Miklos Tamas concludes that we are living in a global post-fascist era which is not
the same as the interwar totalitarian model based on a mass movement of Fascism. Instead,
neoliberal totalirarianism categorically rejects the Enlightenment tradition of citizenship
which is the very essence of the bourgeois social contract. While the normative state in
advanced countries is becoming more authoritarian with police-state characteristics, the state
in the periphery whether Eastern Europe, Latin America or Africa is swept along by neoliberal
policies that drive it toward authoritarianism as much as the state in Trump's America as in
parts of Europe to the degree that in January 2018 Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union
(CDU) faced the prospect either of new elections or entering into a coalition with the neo-Nazi
Alternative fur Deutchalnd (AfD). https://www.prosper.org.au/2010/05/25/the-counter-enlightenment/
The rightwing course of the Western World spreading into the rest of the world is not only
because of IMF austerity used as leverage to impose neoliberalism in developing nations.
Considering that countries have been scrambling to attract foreign investment which carries
neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatization, weak trade unions and low taxes as a
precondition, the entire world economic system is the driving force toward a form of
totalitarianism. As Miklos Tamas argues, this has diluted national sovereignty of weaker
countries, allowing national capitalists and especially multinational corporations to play a
determining role in society against the background of a weak state structure. Along with
weakened national sovereignty, national citizenship in turn finds expression in extreme
rightwing groups to compensate for loss of independence as the bourgeois social contract
presumably guarantees. (Aihwa Ong, Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and
Sovereignty , 2006;
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/08/22/globalization-does-not-entail-the-weakening-of-the-liberal-state/
It is undeniable that there is a qualitative difference in Berlin and Rome under neoliberal
regimes today than it was under Fascism. It would be a mistake to lump a contemporary
neoliberal society together with the Third Reich and Fascist Italy, a dreadful and costly
mistake that Stalinists made in the 1930s. Interwar totalitarianism existed under one-party
state with a popular base operating as a police state. Although many countries under varieties
of neoliberal regimes have an electoral system of at least two parties alternating power, the
ruling parties pursue neoliberal policies with variations on social and cultural issues
(identity politics), thus operating within the same policy framework impacting peoples' living
standards.
Not just leftist academic critics, but even the progressive democratic Salon
magazine recognized during the US election of 2016 that the neoliberal state would prevail
regardless of whether Trump or Clinton won the presidential contest. " Neoliberalism
presumes a strong state, working only for the benefit of the wealthy, and as such it has little
pretence to neutrality and universality, unlike the classical liberal state. I would go so far
as to say that neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism's long-nascent project, in
that the desire to transform everything -- every object, every living thing, every fact on the
planet -- in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding
ideology.
In neoliberal society either of the pluralist-diversity or of the authoritarian political
camp there are elements of polizeistaat though not nearly full blown as in the Third
Reich. While conformity to the status quo and self-censorship is the only way to survive,
modern means of communication and multiple dissident outlets attacking the status quo from the
right, which is far more pervasive and socio-politically acceptable than doing so from the
left, has actually facilitated the evolution of the new totalitarian state.
http://www.thegreatregression.eu/progressive-neoliberalism-versus-reactionary-populism-a-hobsons-choice/
Whereas big business collaborated closely with Fascist dictators from the very beginning to
secure the preeminence of the existing social order threatened by the crisis of democracy
created by capitalism, big business under the neoliberal social contract has the same goal,
despite disagreement on the means of forging political consensus. Partly because neoliberalism
carries the legacy of late 19 th century liberalism and operates in most countries
within the parliamentary system, and partly because of fear of grassroots social revolution, a
segment of the capitalist class wants to preserve the democratic façade of the
neoliberal social contract by perpetuating identity politics. In either case, 'economic
fascism' as the essence of neoliberalism, or post-fascism as Miklos Tamas calls it, is
an inescapable reality. (Andrea Micocci and Flavia Di Mario, The Fascist Nature of
Neoliberalism , 2017).
In distinguishing the composition and goals of theparliamentary state vs. the Fascist
one-party state, Italian Fascism's theoretician Giovanni Gentile characterizedit as
'totalitario'; a term also applied to Germany's Third Reich the latter which had the added
dimension of anti-Semitism as policy. Arguing that ideology in the Fascist totalitarian state
had a ubiquitous role in every aspect of life and power over people, Gentile and Mussolini
viewed such state as the catalyst to a powerful nation-state that subordinates all institutions
and the lives of citizens to its mold. In "La Dottrina del Fascismo" (Gentile and
Mussolini, 1932), Musolini made famous the statement: "Everything within the state, nothing
outside the state, nothing against the state," although Hitler's polizeistaat was
more totalitarian because it had the means to achieve policy goals stated in Mein
Kampf .
The convergence of neoliberalism and Fascism is hardly surprising when one considers that
both aim at a totalitarian society of different sorts, one of state-driven ideology and the
other market-driven with the corporate welfare state behind it. In some respects, Sheldon
Wolin's the "inverted totalitarianism" theory places this issue into another
perspective, arguing that despite the absence of a dictator the corporate state behind the
façade of 'electoral democracy' is an instrument of totalitarianism. Considering the
increased role of security-intelligence-surveillance agencies in a presumably open society, it
is not difficult to see that society has more illiberal than classic liberal traits. Sheldon
Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted
Totalitarianism, 2008)
More powerful than the Axis Powers combined, American "Inverted totalitarianism" was
internationalized during the Cold War and became more blatant during the war on terror, in
large measure used as a pretext to impose neoliberalism in the name of national security. As
the police-state gradually became institutionalized in every respect from illegal surveillance
of citizens to suppressing dissent to the counterterrorism-neoliberal regime, it was becoming
clearer to many scholars that a version of fascism was emerging in the US which also sprang up
around the world. (Charlotte Heath-Kelly et al. eds., Neoliberalism and Terror: Critical
Engagements , 2016;
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15074-Chris-Hedges-The-Great-Unraveling-USA-on-the-brink-of-neo-fascist-police-state#.WifwyLBrzIU
Almost a century after the era of Fascist totalitarianism that led to WWII, the transition
of capitalism's global structure with a shifting core from the US and northwest Europe to East
Asia has entailed intense global competition for capital accumulation to the degree that the
advanced countries have been pushing living standards downward to compete with low-wage global
markets. The process of draining greater surplus value from labor especially from the periphery
countries where IMF-style austerity policies have resulted in massive capital transfer to the
core countries has taken place under the neoliberal social contract that has striking
similarities with Fascism.
Backed by the state in the advanced capitalist countries, international organizations among
them the IMF have been promoting economic fascism under the label of 'neoliberal reforms', thus
molding state structures accordingly. Neoliberal totalitarianism is far more organized and
ubiquitous than interwar Fascism not only because of the strong national state structure of
core countries and modern technology and communications networks that enables surveillance and
impose subtle forms of indoctrination, but also because the international agencies established
by the US under the Bretton Woods system help to impose policies and institutions globally.
Characteristics of the Illiberal Neoliberal Society
The genesis of illiberal politics can be traced back to the end of WWI when Europeans
witnessed the unraveling of the rationalist order of the Enlightenment rooted in Lockean
liberalism. Influenced by the wars of imperialism that led the First World War at the end of
which Vladimir Lenin led the Bolsheviks to a revolutionary victory over Czarist Russia, Joseph
Schumpeter like many European scholars was trying to make sense of how capitalism's forcible
geographic expansion (imperialism) led to such global disasters that undermined the rationalist
assumptions of the Enlightenment about society and its institutions. In his Sociology of
Imperialism (1919), he wrote the following about the relationship of the bourgeoisie with
the state.
"The bourgeoisie did not simply supplant the sovereign, nor did it make him its leader,
as did the nobility. It merely wrested a portion of its power from him and for the rest
submitted to him. It did not take over from the sovereign the state as an abstract form of
organization. The state remained a special social power, confronting the bourgeoisie. In some
countries it has continued to play that role to the present day. It is in the state that the
bourgeoisie with its interests seeks refuge, protection against external and even domestic
enemies. The bourgeoisie seeks to win over the state for itself, and in return serves the state
and state interests that are different from its own."
The strong state structure of the imperial state that the bourgeoisie supported as a vehicle
of expanding their interests globally while maintaining the social order at the national level
held true only for the advanced capitalist countries eagerly trying to secure international
markets at any cost including armed conflict. While essential for capital integration and
expansion, the strong state structure was and remains an anathema to the bourgeoisie, if its
role is to make political, economic and social concessions to the laboring and middle classes
which are the popular base for bourgeois political parties. While classical liberal theory
expresses the interests of capitalism its role is not to serve in furtherance of political
equality for the simple reason that capitalism cannot exist under such a regime. Both John
Locke and John Stuart Mill rejected political egalitarianism, while Schumpeter viewed
democratic society with egalitarianism as an integral part of democracy. Rejecting Locke's and
Mill's abstract receptiveness to egalitarianism, neoliberals of either the pluralist or
authoritarian camp are blatantly adopt illiberal policies that exacerbate elitism, regardless
of the rhetoric they employ to secure mass popular support.
Characterized by elitism, class, gender, racial and ethnic inequality, limits on freedom of
expression, on human rights and civil rights, illiberal politics thrives on submission of the
masses to the status quo. In his essay The Political Economy of Neoliberalism and Illiberal
Democracy, Garry Jacobs, an academic/consultant who still believes in classical liberal
economics operating in a pluralistic and preferably non-militaristic society, warns that
world-wide democracy is under siege. " Democratic elections have become the means for
installing leaders with little respect for democratic values. The tolerance, openness and
inclusiveness on which modern democracy is founded are being rejected by candidates and voters
in favor of sectarian, parochial fears and interests. The role of the free press as an
impartial arbiter of facts is being undermined by the rise of private and public news media
conglomerates purveying political preference as fact combined with a blinding blizzard of fake
news. Party politics has been polarized into a winner-take-all fight to the finish by
vested-interests and impassioned extremist minorities trying to impose their agendas on a
complacent majority. Corporate power and money power are transforming representative
governments into plutocratic pseudo-democracies. Fundamentalists are seizing the instruments of
secular democracy to impose intolerant linguistic, racial and religious homogeneity in place of
the principles of liberty and harmonious heterogeneity that are democracy's foundation and
pinnacle of achievement."
While neoliberals in the populist rightwing wholeheartedly share and promote such views,
those who embrace the pluralist-identity politics camp are just as supportive of many aspects
of the corporate welfare-police-counterterrorism state as a means to engender domestic
sociopolitical conformity and to achieve closer global economic integration. The question is
not so much what each political camp under the larger neoliberal umbrella pursues as a strategy
to mobilize a popular base but whether the economic-social policies intertwined with a
corporate-welfare-police-counterterrorism state is the driving force toward a Fascist model of
government. In both the pluralist model with some aspects of the social safety net, and the
rightwing populist version neoliberalism's goal is rapid capital accumulation on a world scale,
institutional submission of the individual and molding the citizen's subjective reality around
the neoliberal ideology.
Illiberal politics in our time is partly both symptomatic of and a reaction to neoliberal
globalism and culture wars that serve to distract from the intensified class struggle boiling
beneath the surface. Rhetorically denouncing globalist neoliberalism, populist rightwing
politicians assert the importance of national capitalism but always within the perimeters of
neoliberal policies. Hence they co-opt the socio-cultural positions of nationalist extremists
as a political strategy to mobilize the masses. Scholars, journalists and politicians have
speculated whether the rising tide of rightwing populism pursuing neoliberalism under
authoritarian models not just in the Western World, but Eastern Europe, South Asia and Africa
reflects the rejection of liberal democracy and the triumph of illiberal politics that best
reflects and serves the political economy. Unquestionably, there is a direct correlation
between the internationalization of the Western neoliberal transformation model imposed on the
world in the post-Soviet era and the rise of rightwing populism reacting to the gap between the
promises of what capitalism was supposed to deliver and the reality of downward pressures on
living standards. http://www.counterfire.org/interview/18068-india-s-nightmare-the-extremism-of-narendra-modi
;
http://ac.upd.edu.ph/index.php/news-announcements/1201-southeast-asian-democracy-neoliberalism-populism-vedi-hadiz
; http://balticworlds.com/breaking-out-of-the-deadlock-of-neoliberalism-vs-rightwing-populism/
Not just the US, but Europe has been flirting with 'illiberal democracy' characterized by
strong authoritarian-style elected officials as Garry Jacobs has observed. Amid elections in
Bosnia in 1996, US diplomat Richard Holbrooke wondered about the rightwing path of former
Yugoslav republics. "Suppose the election was declared free and fair and those elected are
"racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is
the dilemma." Twenty years after what Holbrooke dreaded election outcomes in Yugoslavia,
the US elected a rightwing neoliberal populist leading the Republican Party and making culture
wars a central theme to distract from the undercurrent class struggle in the country. A
structural issue that transcends personalities, this reality in America is symptomatic of the
link between neoliberalism and the rise of illiberal democracy in a number of countries around
the world. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1997-11-01/rise-illiberal-democracy
Some political observers analyzing the rightist orientation of neoliberal policies have
concluded that neoliberalism and Fascism have more in common than people realize. In 2016,
Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates Union of Belgium, wrote a brief article arguing
that Neoliberalism is indeed a form of Fascism; a position people seem to be willing to debate
after the election of Donald Trump pursuing neoliberal policies with a rightwing populist
ideological and cultural platform to keep a popular base loyal to the Republican Party.
"Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian
and nihilistic ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy
has brought under subjection not only the government of democratic countries but also every
aspect of our thought. The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which
treat it as a subordinate and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in
jeopardy."http://www.defenddemocracy.press/president-belgian-magistrates-neoliberalism-form-fascism/
It is ironic that neoliberal society is 'a species of fascism', but there no widespread
popular opposition from leftist groups to counter it. People remain submissive to the
neoliberal state that has in fact eroded much of what many in the pluralist camp hail as
liberal democratic institutions. Most adapt to the status quo because to do otherwise means
difficulty surviving today just as it was difficult to survive under Fascism for those in
opposition; as Palmiro Togliatti noted ( Lectures on Fascism, 1935) when he cautioned
about castigating workers who joined the party simply because they placed survival of their
family above any progressive ideology. Because evidence of systemic exploitation ingrained into
society passes as the 'norm', and partly because repression targets minority groups, migrants,
and the working class, especially those backing trade unions and progressive political parties,
people support the neoliberal state that they see as the constitutional entity and the only
means for survival.
The media, government and mainstream institutions denounce anyone crying out for social
justice, human rights and systemic change. Such people are 'trendy rebels', as though social
justice is a passing fad like a clothing line, misguided idealists or treasonous criminals.
Considering that the corporate-owned and state media validates the legitimacy of the neoliberal
social contract, the political class and social elites enjoy the freedom to shape the state's
goals in the direction toward a surveillance police-state. All of this goes without notice in
the age when it is almost expected because it is defaulted to technology making easy to detect
foreign and domestic enemies while using the same technology to shape the citizen's subjective
reality.
Partly because of the communications revolution in the digital age, neoliberalism has the
ability to mold the citizen beyond loyalty to the social contract not just into mechanical
observance but total submission to its institutions by reshaping the person's values and
identity. In this respect, neoliberalism is not so different from Fascism whose goal was to
mold the citizen. " Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in
redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood,
their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations. Classical
liberalism was successful too, for two and a half centuries, in people's self-definition,
although communism and fascism succeeded less well in realizing the "new man." It cannot be
emphasized enough that neoliberalism is not classical liberalism, or a return to a purer
version of it, as is commonly misunderstood; it is a new thing, because the market, for one
thing, is not at all free and untethered and dynamic in the sense that classical liberalism
idealized it.
Although people go about their daily lives focused on their interests, they operate against
the background of neoliberal institutions that determine their lives in every respect from
chatting on their cell phones to how they live despite their illusions of free will. As the
world witnessed a segment of the population openly embracing fascism from movement to
legitimate political party in interwar Europe, a corresponding rise in racism and ethnocentrism
under the umbrella of rightwing neoliberal populism has taken place in the first two decades of
the 21 st century.
Representing the UN Human Rights agency, Prince Zeid bin Ra'ad al-Hussein stated that 2016
was disastrous for human rights, as the 'clash of civilizations' construct has become ingrained
into the political mainstream in Western countries. "In some parts of Europe, and in the
United States, anti-foreigner rhetoric full of unbridled vitriol and hatred, is proliferating
to a frightening degree, and is increasingly unchallenged. The rhetoric of fascism is no longer
confined to a secret underworld of fascists, meeting in ill-lit clubs or on the 'deep net'. It
is becoming part of normal daily discourse."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/united-nations-chilling-warning-rise-fascism-human-rights-prince-zeid-a7464861.html
Because neoliberalism has pushed all mainstream bourgeois political parties to the right,
the far right no longer seems nearly as extreme today as it did during the Vietnam War's
protest generation who still had hope for a socially just society even if that meant
strengthening the social welfare system. The last two generations were raised knowing no
alternative to neoliberalism; the panacea for all that ails society is less social welfare and
privatization of public services within the framework of a state structure buttressing
corporate welfare. The idea that nothing must be tolerated outside the hegemonic market and all
institutions must mirror the neoliberal model reflects a neo-totalitarian society where
sociopolitical conformity follows because survival outside the system is not viable.
Although Western neoconservatives have employed the term 'neo-totalitarian' to describe
Vladimir Putin's Russia, the term applies even more accurately to the US and someEuropean
nations operating under neoliberal-military-police state structures with as much power than the
Russian bureaucratic state has at its disposal.The contradiction of neoliberalism rests in the
system's goal of integrating everyone into the neo-totalitarian mold. Because of the system's
inherent hierarchical structure, excluding most from the institutional mainstream and limiting
popular sovereignty to the elites exposes the exploitation and repression goals that account
for the totalitarian nature of the system masquerading as democratic where popular sovereignty
is diffused. The seemingly puzzling aspect of the rise in rightwing populism across the globe
that rests in marginalization of a segment of the population and the support for it not just
from certain wealthy individuals financing extremist movements, but from a segment of the
middle class and even working class lining up behind it because they see their salvation with
the diminution of weaker social groups. This pattern was also evident in Nazi Germany, Fascist
Italy and pro-Nazi authoritarian regimes of the interwar era. https://www.demdigest.org/neo-totalitarian-russia-potent-existential-threat-west/
; Benjamin Moffitt, The Global Rise of Populism (2017.
Because of contradictions in bourgeois liberal democracy where capital accumulation at any
social cost is the goal, the system produced the current global wave of rightwing populism just
as capitalism in the interwar era gave rise to Fascism. As one analyst put it, " The risk
democratic formations continually face is internal disintegration such that the heterogeneous
elements of the social order not only fail to come together within some principle of or for
unity, but actively turn against one another. In this case, a totally unproductive revolution
takes place. Rather than subversion of the normative order causing suffering, rebellion or
revolution that might establish a new nomos of shared life as a way of establishing a new
governing logic, the dissociated elements of disintegrating democratic formations identify with
the very power responsible for their subjection–capital, the state and, the strong
leader. Thus the possibility of fascism is not negated in neoliberal formations but is an ever
present possibility arising within it. Because the value of the social order as such is never
in itself sufficient to maintain its own constitution, it must have recourse to an external
value, which is the order of the sacred embodied by the sovereign.
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/41987-neoliberalism-fascism-and-sovereignty
/
Public opinion surveys of a number of countries around the world, including those in the US,
indicated that most people do not favor the existing social contract rooted in neoliberal
policies that impact everything from living standards and labor policy to the judicial system
and foreign affairs. Instead of driving workers toward a leftwing revolutionary path, many
support rightwing populism that has resulted in the rise of even greater oppression and
exploitation. Besides nationalism identified with the powerful elites as guardians of the
national interest, many among the masses believe that somehow the same social contract
responsible for existing problems will provide salvation they seek. While widespread
disillusionment with neoliberal globalization seems to be at the core in the rise of rightwing
populism, the common denominator is downward social mobility. (Doug Miller, Can the World
be Wrong ? 2015)
As Garry Jacobs argues, "Even mature democracies show signs of degenerating into their
illiberal namesakes. The historical record confirms that peaceful, prosperous, free and
harmonious societies can best be nurtured by the widest possible distribution of all forms of
power -- political, economic, educational, scientific, technological and social -- to the
greatest extent to the greatest number. The aspiration for individual freedom can only be
realized and preserved when it is married with the right to social equality. The mutual
interdependence of the individual and the collective is the key to their reconciliation and
humanity's future.
http://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/volume-3/issue-3/political-economy-neoliberalism-and-illiberal-democracy
Just as in the interwar era when many Europeans lost confidence in the rationalism of the
Enlightenment and lapsed into amorality and alienation that allowed for even greater public
manipulation by the hegemonic culture, in the early 21 st the neoliberal social
contract with a complex matrix of communications at its disposal is able to indoctrinate on a
mass scale more easily than ever. Considering the low level of public trust in the mainstream
media that most people regardless of political/ideological position view as propaganda rather
than informational, cynicism about national and international institutions prevails. As the
fierce struggle for power among mainstream political parties competing to manage the state on
behalf of capital undercuts the credibility of the political class, rightwing elements enter
the arena as 'outsider' messiahs above politics (Bonapartism in the 21 st century)
to save the nation, while safeguarding the neoliberal social contract. This is as evident in
France where the pluralist political model of neoliberalism has strengthened the neo-Fascist
one that Marine Le Pen represents, as in Trump's America where the Democratic Party's
neoliberal policies helped give rise to rightwing populism.
As the following article in The Economist points out, widespread disillusionment
with globalist neoliberal policies drove people to the right for an enemy to blame for all the
calamities that befall society. " Beset by stagnant wage growth, less than half of
respondents in America, Britain and France believe that globalisation is a "force for good" in
the world. Westerners also say the world is getting worse. Even Americans, generally an
optimistic lot, are feeling blue: just 11% believe the world has improved in the past year. The
turn towards nationalism is especially pronounced in France, the cradle of liberty. Some 52% of
the French now believe that their economy should not have to rely on imports, and just 13%
reckon that immigration has a positive effect on their country. France is divided as to whether
or not multiculturalism is something to be embraced. Such findings will be music to the ears of
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, France's nationalist, Eurosceptic party.
Current (and admittedly early) polling has her tied for first place in the 2017 French
presidential race.https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-12
Similar to deep-rooted cultural and ideological traits of Nazism in German society, there
are similar traits in contemporary US, India and other countries where rightwing populism has
found a receptive public. Although there are varieties of populism from Lepenism (Marine Le
Pen's National Front) to Trumpism (US Republican Donald Trump) to Modism (India's Narendra
Modi), they share common characteristics, including cult of personality as a popular rallying
catalyst, promoting hatred and marginalization of minority groups, and promising to deliver a
panacea to "society" when in fact their policies are designed to strengthen big capital.
Rightwing populist politicians who pursue neoliberal policies are opportunistically pushing
the political popular base toward consolidation of a Fascist movement and often refer to
themselves as movement rather than a party. Just as there were liberals who refused to accept
the imminent rise of Fascism amid the parliamentary system's collapse in the 1920s, there are
neoliberals today who refuse to accept that the global trend of populism is a symptom of failed
neoliberalism that has many common characteristics with Fascism. In an article entitled
"Populism is not Fascism: But it could be a Harbinger" by Sheri Berman, the neoliberal
journal Foreign Affairs , acknowledged that liberal bourgeois democracy is losing its
luster around the world. However, the author would not go as far as to examine the structural
causes for this phenomenon because to do so would be to attack the social contract within which
it operates. Treating rightwing populism as though it is a marginal outgrowth of mainstream
conservatism and an aberration rather than the outgrowth of the system's core is merely a
thinly veiled attempt to defend the status quo of which rightwing populism is an integral
part.
Structural Exploitation under the Neoliberal Social Contract
Structural exploitation – "a property of institutions or systems in which the
"rules of the game" unfairly benefit one group of people to the detriment of another"https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
– has been an incontrovertible reality of all class-based societiesfrom the establishment
of the earliest city-states in Mesopotamia until the present.Usually but not always intertwined
with social oppression, structural exploitation entails a relationship of social dominance of
an elite group over the rest of society subordinated for the purpose of economic, social,
political, and cultural exploitation. Legitimized by the social contract, justifications for
institutional exploitation include safety and security of country, eliminating impediments to
progress, and emulating nature's competitive forces that exist in the animal kingdom and
reflect human nature.
From Solon's laws in 6 th century BC Athens until our contemporary neoliberal
era, social contract theory presumes that the state is the catalyst for social harmony if not
fairness and not for a privileged social class to exploit the rest of society. No legal system
has ever been codified that explicitly states its goal is to use of the state as an instrument
of exploitation and oppression. In reality however, from ancient Babylon when King Hammurabi
codified the first laws in 1780 B.C. until the present when multinational corporations and
wealthy individuals directly or through lobbyists exert preponderate influence in public policy
the theoretical assumption is one of fairness and justice for all people as a goal for the
social contract.
In the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – biotechnology, nanotechnology,
quantum computing, and artificial intelligence – presumably to serve mankind as part of
the social contract rather than to exploit more thoroughly and marginalize a large segment of
humanity, the persistence of structural exploitation and oppression challenges those with a
social conscience and morality rooted in humanist values to question what constitutes societal
progress and public interest. Liberal and Christian-Libertarian arguments about free will
notwithstanding, it has always been the case that mainstream institutions and the dominant
culture indoctrinate people into believing that ending exploitation by changing the social
contract is a utopian dream; a domain relegated to poets, philosophers and song writers lacking
proper grounding in the reality of mainstream politics largely in the service of the dominant
socioeconomic class. The paradox in neoliberal ideology is its emphasis on free choice, while
the larger goal is to mold the subjective reality within the neoliberal institutional structure
and way of life. The irreconcilable aspects of neoliberalism represent the contradictory goals
of the desire to project democratic mask that would allow for popular sovereignty while
pursuing capital accumulation under totalitarian methods. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_contractarianism.html
' http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2017/05/15/indoctrination-and-free-will/
Social cooperation becomes dysfunctional when distortions and contradictions within the
system create large-scale social marginalization exposing the divergence between the promise of
the neoliberal social contract and the reality in peoples' lives. To manage the dysfunction by
mobilizing popular support, the political elites of both the pluralist and the
authoritarian-populist wing operating under the neoliberal political umbrella compete for power
by projecting the image of an open democratic society. Intra-class power struggles within the
elite social and political classes vying for power distracts from social exploitation because
the masses line behind competing elites convinced such competition is the essence of democracy.
As long as the majority in society passively acquiesces to the legitimacy of the social
contract, even if in practice society is socially unjust, the status quo remains secure until
systemic contradictions in the political economy make it unsustainable. https://mises.org/library/profound-significance-social-harmony
In the last three centuries, social revolutions, upheavals and grassroots movements have
demonstrated that people want a social contract that includes workers, women, and marginalized
groups into the mainstream and elevates their status economically and politically. In the early
21 st century, there are many voices crying out for a new social contract based on
social justice and equality against neoliberal tyranny. However, those faint voices are drowned
against the preponderate neoliberal public policy impacting every sector while shaping the
individual's worldview and subjective reality. The triumph of neoliberal orthodoxy has deviated
from classical liberalism to the degree that dogmatism 'single-thought' process dominates not
just economics, not just the social contract, but the very fabric of our humanity. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21598282.2013.761449?journalCode=rict20
; https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world
Under neoliberalism, "Uberization" as a way of life is becoming the norm not just in the
'financialization' neoliberal economy resting on speculation rather than productivity but in
society as well. The neoliberal ideology has indoctrinated the last two generations that grew
up under this system and know no other reality thus taking for granted the neoliberal way of
life as natural as the air they breathe. Often working two jobs, working overtime without
compensation or taking work home just to keep the job has become part of chasing the dream of
merely catching up with higher costs of living. People have accepted perpetual work enmeshed
with the capitalist ideology of perpetual economic growth perversely intertwined with progress
of civilization. The corporate ideology of "grow or die" at any cost is in reality economic
growth confined to the capitalist class, while fewer and fewer people enjoy its fruits and
communities, cities, entire countries under neoliberal austerity suffer.
The incentive for conformity is predicated on the belief that the benefits of civilization
would be fairly distributed if not in the present then at some point in the future for one's
children or grandchildren; analogous to living a virtuous life in order to enjoy the rewards
after death. As proof that the system works for the benefit of society and not just the
capitalist class, neoliberal apologists point to stock market gains and surprisingly there is a
psychological impact – the wealth effect – on the mass consumer who feels
optimistic and borrows to raise consumption. Besides the fact that only a very small percentage
of people on the planet own the vast majority of securities, even in the US there is no
correlation between stock market performance and living standards. (John Seip and Dee Wood
Harper, The Trickle Down Delusion , 2016)
If we equate the stock market with the 'wealth of the nation', then in 1982 when the S & P
index stood at 117 rising to 2675 in December 2017, the logical conclusion is that living
standards across the US rose accordingly. However, this is the period when real incomes for
workers and the middle class actually declined despite sharp rise in productivity and immense
profits reflected in the incomes gap reflected in the bottom 90% vs. the top 10%. This is also
the period when we see the striking divergence between wealth accumulation for the top 1% and a
relative decline for the bottom 90%. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/upshot/income-inequality-united-states.html
; https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality/
A research study compiled by the pro-organized labor non-profit think tank 'Economic Policy
Institute' stresses the divergence between productivity and real wages. While the top 0.01% of
America's experienced 386% income growth between 1980 and 1914, the bottom 90% suffered 3% real
income drop. Whereas in 1980 income share for the bottom 90% stood at 65% and for the top 1% it
stood at 10%, by 2014 the bottom 90% held just half of the income, while the top 1% owned 21%.
This dramatic income divergence, which has been shown in hundreds of studies and not even
neoliberal billionaires deny their validity, took place under the shift toward the full
implementation of the neoliberal social contract. It is significant to note that such income
concentration resulting from fiscal policy, corporate subsidy policy, privatization and
deregulation has indeed resulted in higher productivity exactly as neoliberal apologists have
argued. However, higher worker productivity and higher profits has been made possible precisely
because of income transfer from labor to capitalist. http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/
;
https://aneconomicsense.org/2015/07/13/the-highly-skewed-growth-of-incomes-since-1980-only-the-top-0-5-have-done-better-than-before/
"Real hourly compensation of production, nonsupervisory workers who make up 80 percent
of the workforce, also shows pay stagnation for most of the period since 1973, rising 9.2
percent between 1973 and 2014.Net productivity grew 1.33 percent each year between 1973 and
2014, faster than the meager 0.20 percent annual rise in median hourly compensation. In
essence, about 15 percent of productivity growth between 1973 and 2014 translated into higher
hourly wages and benefits for the typical American worker. Since 2000, the gap between
productivity and pay has risen even faster. The net productivity growth of 21.6 percent from
2000 to 2014 translated into just a 1.8 percent rise in inflation-adjusted compensation for the
median worker (just 8 percent of net productivity growth).Since 2000, more than 80 percent of
the divergence between a typical (median) worker's pay growth and overall net productivity
growth has been driven by rising inequality (specifically, greater inequality of compensation
and a falling share of income going to workers relative to capital owners).Over the entire
1973–2014 period, rising inequality explains over two-thirds of the
productivity–pay divergence. " (Josh Bivens and Lawrence Mishel, "Understanding
the Historic Divergence Between Productivity and a Typical Worker's Pay Why It Matters and Why
It's Real" in Economic Policy Institute, 2015,
http://www.epi.org/publication/understanding-the-historic-divergence-between-productivity-and-a-typical-workers-pay-why-it-matters-and-why-its-real/
The average corporate tax rate in the world has been cut in half in the last two decades
from about 40% to 22%, with the effective rate actually paid lower than the official rate. This
represents a massive transfer of wealth to the highest income brackets drained from the working
class. More than half-a-century ago, American anthropologist Jules Henry wrote that: "The
fact that our society places no limit on wealth while making it accessible to all helps account
for the 'feverish' quality Tocqueville sensed in American civilization." Culture Against
Man (1963). The myth that the neoliberal policies in the information age lead toward a
society richer for all people is readily refuted by the reality of huge wealth distribution
gaps resulting from 'informational capitalism' backed by the corporate welfare state.
Capital accumulation not just in the US but on a world scale without a ceiling has resulted
in more thorough exploitation of workers and in a less socially just society today than in the
early 1960s when Jules Henry was writing and it is headed increasingly toward authoritarian
models of government behind the very thin veneer of meaningless elections. Against this
background of unfettered neoliberalism, social responsibility is relegated to issues ranging
from corporate-supported sustainable development in which large businesses have a vested
interest as part of future designs on capital accumulation, to respecting lifestyle and
cultural and religious freedoms within the existing social contract. (Dieter Plehwe et al.
eds., Neoliberal Hegemony , 2006; Carl Ferenbach and Chris Pinney, " Toward a 21st
Century Social Contract" Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 24, No 2, 2012;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2012.00372.x/abstract
At its Annual conference in 2017 where representatives from the 'Fortune 500', academia,
think tanks, NGOs, and government, business consultancy group BSR provided the following vision
under the heading "A 21 st Century Social Contract" : "The nature of
work is changing very rapidly. Old models of lifelong employment via business and a predictable
safety net provided by government are no longer assured in a new demographic, economic, and
political environment. We see these trends most clearly in the rise of the "gig economy," in
which contingent workers (freelancers, independent contractors, consultants, or other
outsourced and non-permanent workers) are hired on a temporary or part-time basis. These
workers make up more than 90 percent of new job creation in European countries, and by 2020, it
is estimated that more than 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be in contingent jobs."https://bsr17.org/agenda/sessions/the-21st-century-social-contract
Representing multinational corporate members and proud sponsors of sustainable development
solutions within the neoliberal model, BSR applauded the aspirations and expectations of
today's business people that expect to concentrate even more capital as the economy becomes
more 'UBERized' and reliant on the new digital technology. Despite fear and anxiety about a
bleak techno-science future as another mechanism to keep wages as close to subsistence if not
below that level as possible, peoples' survival instinct forces them to adjust their lives
around the neoliberal social contract. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531726/technology-and-inequality/
Reflecting the status quo, the media indoctrinate people to behave as though systemic
exploitation, oppression, division, and marginalization are natural while equality and the
welfare of the community represent an anathema to bourgeois civilization. What passes as the
'social norm', largely reflects the interests of the socioeconomic elites propagating the
'legitimacy' of their values while their advocates vilify values that place priority on the
community aspiring to achieve equality and social justice. (Robert E. Watkins, " Turning
the Social Contract Inside Out: Neoliberal Governance and Human Capital in Two Days, One
Night" , 2016).
The neoliberal myth that the digital technological revolution and the 'knowledge based
economy' (KBE) of endless innovation is the catalyst not only to economic growth but to
the preservation of civilization and welfare of society has proved hollow in the last four
decades. Despite massive innovation in the domain of the digital and biotech domains,
socioeconomic polarization and environmental degradation persist at much higher rates today
than in the 1970s. Whether in the US, the European Union or developing nations, the neoliberal
promise of 'prospering together' has been a farce. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tsq.12106/full
; http://www.ricerchestoriche.org/?p=749
Neoliberal myths about upward linear progress across all segments of society and throughout
the world notwithstanding, economic expansion and contraction only result in greater capital
concentration. "The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database
listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, pulled out all 43,060 multinational
corporations and the share ownerships linking them to construct a model of which companies
controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating
revenues, to map the structure of economic power.The model revealed a core of 1318 companies
with interlocking ownerships. Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on
average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global
operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of
the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, the "real" economy, representing a further
60 per cent of global revenues.When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found
much of it tracked back to a super-entity of 147 even more tightly knit companies (all of their
ownership was held by other members of the super-entity) that controlled 40 per cent of the
total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to
control 40 per cent of the entire network."https://weeklybolshevik.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/imperialism-and-the-concentration-of-capital/http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdf
.
With each passing recessionary cycle of the past four decades working class living standards
have retreated and never recovered. Although the techno-science panacea has proved a necessary
myth and a distraction from the reality of capital concentration, considering that innovation
and technology are integral parts of the neoliberal system, the media, politicians, business
elites, corporate-funded think tanks and academics continue to promote the illusive 'modernist
dream' that only a small segment of society enjoys while the rest take pride living through it
vicariously. ( Laurence Reynolds and Bronislaw Szerszynski, "Neoliberalism and
technology: Perpetual innovation or perpetual crisis?"
Rooted in militarism and police-state policies, the culture of fear is one of the major ways
that the neoliberal regime perpetually distracts people from structural exploitation and
oppression in a neoliberal society that places dogmatic focus on atomism. Despite the atomistic
value system as an integral part of neoliberalism, neoliberals strongly advocate a corporate
state welfare system. Whether supporting pluralism and diversity or rightwing populists,
neoliberals agree that without the state buttressing the private sector, the latter will
collapse. Author of Liberalism in the Shadow of Totalitarianism (2007) David Ciepley
argues in "The Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism" that the system's
contradictions have led to the authoritarian political model as its only option moving
forward.
"Neoliberalism was born in reaction against totalitarian statism, and matured at the
University of Chicago into a program of state-reduction that was directed not just against the
totalitarian state and the socialist state but also (and especially) against the New Deal
regulatory and welfare state. It is a self-consciously reactionary ideology that seeks to roll
back the status quo and institutionalize (or, on its own understanding, re-institutionalize)
the "natural" principles of the market. But the contradiction between its individualist ideals
and our corporate reality means that the effort to institutionalize it, oblivious to this
contradiction, has induced deep dysfunction in our corporate system, producing weakened growth,
intense inequality, and coercion. And when the ideological support of a system collapses -- as
appears to be happening with neoliberalism -- then either the system will collapse, or new
levels of coercion and manipulation will be deployed to maintain it. This appears to be the
juncture at which we have arrived."https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/corporate-contradictions-neoliberalism/
Adhering to a tough law-and-order policy, neoliberals have legalized large-scale criminal
activity perpetrated by capitalists against society while penalizing small-scale crimes carried
out mostly by people in the working class and the marginalized lumpenproletariat .
Regardless of approaches within the neoliberal social contract, neoliberal politicians agree on
a lengthy prison sentences for street gangs selling narcotics while there is no comparable
punishment when it comes to banks laundering billions including from narcotics trafficking, as
Deutsche Bank among other mega banks in the US and EU; fixing rates as
Barclays among others thus defrauding customers of billions; or creating fake accounts
as Wells Fargo , to say nothing of banks legally appropriating billions of dollars
from employees and customers and receiving state (taxpayer) funding in times of 'banking
crises'. Although it seems enigmatic that there is acquiescence for large scale crimes with the
institutional cover of 'legitimacy' by the state and the hegemonic culture, the media has
conditioned the public to shrug off structural exploitation as an integral part of the social
contract. http://theweek.com/articles/729052/brief-history-crime-corruption-malfeasance-american-banks
;
https://www.globalresearch.ca/corruption-in-the-european-union-scandals-in-banking-fraud-and-secretive-ttip-negotiations/5543935
Neoliberalism's reach does not stop with the de-criminalization of white-collar crime or the
transfer of economic policy from the public sector to corporations in order to reverse social
welfare policies. Transferring sweeping policy powers from the public to the corporate sector,
neoliberalism's tentacles impact everything from labor and environment to health, education and
foreign policy into the hands of the state-supported corporate sector in an effort to realize
even greater capital concentration at an even greater pace. This has far reaching implications
in peoples' lives around the world in everything from their work and health to institutions
totalitarian at their core but projecting an image of liberal democracy on the surface. (Noam
Chomsky and R. W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order , 2011; Pauline
Johnson, "Sociology and the Critique of Neoliberalism" European Journal of Social
Theory , 2014
Comprehensive to the degree that it aims to diminish the state's role by having many of its
functions privatized, neoliberalism's impact has reached into monetary policy trying to
supplant it with rogue market forces that test the limits of the law and hard currencies. The
creation of cryptocurrencies among them BITCOIN that represents the utopian dream of
anarcho-libertarians interested in influencing if not dreaming of ultimately supplanting
central banks' role in monetary policy is an important dimension of neoliberal ideology.
Techno-utopians envisioning the digital citizen in a neoliberal society favor a 'gypsy economy'
operating on a digital currency outside the purview of the state's regulatory reach where it is
possible to transfer and hide money while engaging in the ultimate game of speculation. (
https://btctheory.com ; Samuel Valasco and
Leonardo Medina, The Social Nature of Cryptocurrencies , 2013)
Credited as the neoliberal prophet whose work and affiliate organizations multinational
corporations funded, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek favored market forces to determine
monetary policy rather than having government in that role working behind central banks. Aside
from the fact that central banks cater to capital and respond to markets and no other
constituency, Hayek's proposal ( The Denationalization of Money , 1976) was intended
to permit the law of the 'free market' (monetary speculation) determine policy that would
impact peoples' living standards. Hence capital accumulation would not be constrained by
government regulatory measures and the coordination of monetary policy between central banks.
In short, the law of unfettered banking regulation would theoretically result in greater
economic growth, no matter the consequences owing to the absence of banking regulatory measures
that exacerbate contracting economic cycles such as in 2008. www.voltaire.org/article30058.html )
In December 2017, the UK and EU warned that cryptocurrencies are used in criminal
enterprises, including money laundering and tax evasion. Nevertheless, crypto-currency reflects
both the ideology and goals of capital accumulation of neoliberals gaining popularity among
speculators in the US and other countries. Crypto-currencyfulfills the neoliberal speculator's
dream by circumventing the IMF basket of reserved currencies on which others trade while
evading regulatory constraints and all mechanisms of legal accountability for the transfer of
money and tax liability.
Although a tiny fraction of the global monetary system, computer networks make
crypto-currency a reality for speculators, tax evaders, those engaged in illegal activities and
even governments like Venezuela under Nocolas Maduro trying to pump liquidity into the
oil-dependent economy suffering from hyperinflation and economic stagnation If the
crypto-currency system can operate outside the purview of the state, then the neoliberal
ideology of trusting the speculator rather than the government would be proved valid about the
superfluous role of central banks and monetary centralization, a process that capitalism itself
created for the harmonious operation of capitalism.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/04/bitcoin-uk-eu-plan-cryptocurrency-price-traders-anonymity
; http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2099017-venezuela-inflacion-nicolas-maduro-crisis-precios
Indicative of the success of the neoliberal ideology's far reaching impact in economic life
cryptocurrencies' existencealso reflects the crisis of capitalism amid massive assaults on
middle class and working class living standards in the quest for greater capital concentration.
In an ironic twist, the very neoliberal forces that promote cryptocurrencies decry their use by
anti-Western nations – Iran, Venezuela, and Russia among others.The criticism of
anti-Western governments resorting to cryptocurrenciesis based on their use as a means of
circumventing the leverage that reserve currencies like the dollar and euro afford to the West
over non-Western nations. This is only one of a few contradictions that neoliberalism creates
and undermines the system it strives to build just as it continues to foster its ideology as
the only plausible one to pursue globally. Another contradiction is the animosity toward
crypto-currencies from mainstream financial institutions that want to maintain a monopoly on
government-issued currency which is where they make their profits. As the world's largest
institutional promoter of neoliberalism, the IMF has cautioned not to dismiss cryptocurrencies
because they could have a future, or they may actually 'be the future'. https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-unlimited-potential-lies-in-apolitical-core/
; http://fortune.com/2017/10/02/bitcoin-ethereum-cryptocurrency-imf-christine-lagarde/
After the "Washington Consensus" of 1989, IMF austerity policies are leverage to impose
neoliberal policies globally have weakened national institutions from health to education and
trade unions that once formed a social bond for workers aspiring to an integrative socially
inclusive covenant in society rather than marginalization. The IMF uses austerity policies for
debt relief as leverage to have the government provide more favorable investment conditions and
further curtail the rights of labor with everything from ending collective bargaining to
introducing variations of "right-to-work" laws" that prohibit trade unions from forcing
collective strikes, collecting dues or signing the collective contract. Justified in the name
of 'capitalist efficiency', weakening organized labor and its power of collective bargaining
has been an integral part of the neoliberal social contract as much in the US and UK as across
the rest of the world, invariably justified by pointing to labor markets where workers earn the
lowest wages. (B. M. Evans and S. McBride, Austerity: The Lived Experience , 2017;
Vicente Berdayes, John W. Murphy, eds. Neoliberalism, Economic Radicalism, and the
Normalization of Violence , 2016).
Although many in the mainstream media took notice of the dangers of neoliberalism leading
toward authoritarianism after Trump's election, a few faint voices have been warning about this
inevitability since the early 1990s. Susan George, president of the Transnational Institute,
has argued that neoliberalism is contrary to democracy, it is rooted in Social Darwinism, it
undermines the liberal social contract under which that people assume society operates, but it
is the system that governments and international organization like the IMF have been
promoting.
"Over the past twenty years, the IMF has been strengthened enormously. Thanks to the
debt crisis and the mechanism of conditionality, it has moved from balance of payments support
to being quasi-universal dictator of so-called "sound" economic policies, meaning of course
neo-liberal ones. The World Trade Organisation was finally put in place in January 1995 after
long and laborious negotiations, often rammed through parliaments which had little idea what
they were ratifying. Thankfully, the most recent effort to make binding and universal
neo-liberal rules, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, has failed, at least temporarily.
It would have given all rights to corporations, all obligations to governments and no rights at
all to citizens. The common denominator of these institutions is their lack of transparency and
democratic accountability. This is the essence of neo-liberalism. It claims that the economy
should dictate its rules to society, not the other way around. Democracy is an encumbrance,
neo-liberalism is designed for winners, not for voters who, necessarily encompass the
categories of both winners and losers."
Those on the receiving end of neoliberalism's Social Darwinist orientation are well aware of
public policy's negative impact on their lives but they feel helpless to confront the social
contract. According to opinion polls, people around the world realize there is a huge gap
between what political and business leaders, and international organizations claim about
institutions designed to benefit all people and the reality of marginalization. The result is
loss of public confidence in the social contract theoretically rooted in consent and democracy.
"When elected governments break the "representative covenant" and show complete
indifference to the sufferings of citizens, when democracy is downgraded to an abstract set of
rules and deprived of meaning for much of the citizenry, many will be inclined to regard
democracy as a sham, to lose confidence in and withdraw their support for electoral
institutions. Dissatisfaction with democracy now ranges from 40 percent in Peru and Bolivia to
59 percent in Brazil and 62 percent in Colombia. (Boron, "Democracy or Neoliberalism",
http://bostonreview.net/archives/BR21.5/boron.html
)
Not just in developing nations operating under authoritarian capitalist model to impose
neoliberal policies, but in advanced countries people recognize that the bourgeois freedom,
democracy and justice are predicated on income. Regardless of whether the regime operates under
a pluralistic neoliberal regime or rightwing populist one, the former much more tolerant of
diversity than the latter, the social contract goals are the same. In peoples' lives around the
world social exploitation has risen under neoliberal policies whether imposed the nation-state,
a larger entity such as the EU, or international organizations such as the IMF. Especially for
the European and US middle class, but also for Latin American and African nations statistics
show that the neoliberal social contract has widened the poor-rich gap.
In a world where the eight wealthiest individuals own as much wealth as the bottom 50% or
3.6 billion people, social exploitation and oppression has become normal because the mainstream
institutions present it in such light to the world and castigate anyone critical of
institutionalized exploitation and oppression. Rightwing populist demagogues use nationalism,
cultural conservatism and vacuous rhetoric about the dangers of big capital and 'liberal
elites' to keep the masses loyal to the social contract by faulting the pluralist-liberal
politicians rather than the neoliberal social contract. As the neoliberal political economy has
resulted in a steady rising income gap and downward social mobility in the past three decades,
it is hardly surprising that a segment of the masses lines behind rightwing populist demagogues
walking a thin line between bourgeois democracy and Fascism.
Seizing power from sovereign states, multinational corporation are pursuing neoliberal
policy objectives on a world scale, prompting resistance to the neoliberal social contract
which rarely class-based and invariably identity-group oriented manifested through
environmental, gender, race, ethnicity, gay, religious and minority groups of different sorts.
Regardless of the relentless media campaign to suppress class consciousness, workers are aware
that they have common interests and public opinion studies reveal as much. (Susan George,
Shadow Sovereigns: How Global Corporations are seizing Power , 2015)
According to the Pew Research center, the world average for satisfaction with their
governments are at 46%, the exact percentage as in the US that ranks about the same as South
Africa and much lower than neighboring Canada at 70% and Sweden at 79%. " Publics around
the globe are generally unhappy with the functioning of their nations' political systems.
Across the 36 countries asked the question, a global median of 46% say they are very or
somewhat satisfied with the way their democracy is working, compared with 52% who are not too
or not at all satisfied. Levels of satisfaction vary considerably by region and within regions.
Overall, people in the Asia-Pacific region are the most happy with their democracies. At least
half in five of the six Asian nations where this question was asked express satisfaction. Only
in South Korea is a majority unhappy (69%).
As confounding as it appears that elements of the disillusioned middle class and working
class opt either for the exploitation of pluralist neoliberalism or the exploitation and
oppression of rightwing populism expressed somewhat differently in each country, it is not
difficult to appreciate the immediacy of a person's concerns for survival like all other
species above all else. The assumption of rational behavior in the pursuit of social justice is
a bit too much to expect considering that people make irrational choices detrimental to their
best interests and to society precisely because the dominant culture has thoroughly
indoctrinated them. It seems absurd that indirectly people choose exploitation and oppression
for themselves and others in society, but they always have as the dominant culture secular and
religious indoctrinates them into accepting exploitation and oppression. (Shaheed Nick
Mohammed, Communication and the Globalization of Culture , 2011)
Throughout Western and Eastern Europe rightwing political parties are experiencing a
resurgence not seen since the interwar era, largely because the traditional conservatives moved
so far to the right. Even the self-baptized Socialist parties are nothing more than staunch
advocates of the same neoliberal status quo as the traditional conservatives. The US has also
moved to the right long before the election of Donald Trump who openly espouses suppression of
certain fundamental freedoms as an integral part of a pluralistic society. As much as in the US
and Europe as in the rest of the world, analysts wonder how could any working class person
champion demagogic political leaders whose vacuous populist rhetoric promises 'strong nation"
for all but their policies benefit the same socioeconomic elites as the neoliberal
politicians.(J. Rydgren (Ed.), Class Politics and the Radical Right , 2012)
Rooted onclassical liberal values of the Enlightenment, the political and social elites
present a social contract that is theoretically all-inclusive and progressive, above all 'fair'
because it permits freedom to compete, when in reality the social structure under which
capitalism operates necessarily entails exploitation and oppression that makes marginalization
very clear even to its staunchest advocates who then endeavor to justify it by advancing
theories about individual human traits.
In 2012 the United States spent an estimated 19.4% of GDP on such social expenditures,
according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Paris-based
industrial country think tank. Denmark spent 30.5%, Sweden 28.2% and Germany 26.3%. All of
these nations have a lower central government debt to GDP ratio than that of the United States.
Why the United States invests relatively less in its social safety net than many other
countries and why those expenditures are even at risk in the current debate over debt reduction
reflect Americans' conflicted, partisan and often contradictory views on fairness, inequality,
the role and responsibility of government and individuals in society and the efficacy of
government action. Rooted in value differences, not just policy differences, the debate over
the U.S. social contract is likely to go on long after the fiscal cliff issue has been
resolved."http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/01/15/public-attitudes-toward-the-next-social-contract/
The neoliberal model of capitalism spewing forth from core countries to the periphery and
embraced by capitalists throughout the world has resulted in greater social inequality,
exploitation and oppression, despite proclamations that by pluralist-diversity neoliberals
presenting themselves as remaining true to 'democracy'. The tilt to the right endorsed at the
ballot box by voters seeking solutions to systemic problems and a more hopeful future indicates
that some people demand exclusion and/or punishment of minority social groups in society, as
though the exploitation and oppression of 'the other' would vicariously elevate the rest of
humanity to a higher plane. Although this marks a dangerous course toward authoritarianism and
away from liberal capitalism and Karl Popper's 'Open Society' thesis operating in a pluralistic
world against totalitarianism, it brings to surface the essence of neoliberalism which is
totalitarian, the very enemy Popper and his neoconservative followers were allegedly trying to
prevent. (Calvin Hayes, Popper, Hayek and the Open Society , 2009)
Social Exclusion, Popular Resistanceand the Future of Neoliberalism
Social Exclusion
Every sector of society from the criminal justice system to elderly care has been impacted
by neoliberal social marginalization. More significant than any other aspect of neoliberalism,
the creation of a chronic debtor classwithout any assets is floating a step above the
structurally unemployed and underemployed.The Industrial revolution exacerbated social
exclusion producing an underclass left to its own fate by a state that remained faithful to the
social contract's laissez philosophy. Composed of vagrants, criminals, chronically unemployed,
and people of the streets that British social researcher Henry Mayhew described in London
Labour and the London Poor , a work published three years after the revolutions of 1848
that shattered the liberal foundations of Europe, the lumpenproletariat caught the attention of
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels ( The German Ideology ) interested in the industrial
working class movement as the vanguard of the revolution.
Lacking a class consciousness thus easily exploited by the elites the lumpenproletariat were
a product of industrial capitalism's surplus labor that kept wages at or just above subsistence
levels, long before European and American trade union struggles were able to secure a living
wage.In the last four decades neoliberal policies have created a chronic debtor working class
operating under the illusion of integration into the mainstream when in fact their debtor
status not only entails social exclusion but relegated to perpetual servitude dependence and
never climbing out of it. The neoliberal state is the catalyst to the creation of this new
class.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-20/a-164-year-old-idea-helps-explain-the-huge-changes-sweeping-the-world-s-workforce
In an essay entitled "Labour Relations and Social Movements in the 21st
Century"
Portuguese social scientists Elísio Estanque and Hermes Augusto Costa argue that the
manner that neoliberalism has impacted Europe's social structure in both core and periphery
countries has given rise to the new precarious working class, often college-degreed,
overqualified, and struggling to secure steady employment especially amid recessionary cycles
that last longer and run deeper.
"The panorama of a deep economic crisis which in the last few decades has hit Europe and
its Welfare state in particular has had an unprecedented impact on employment and social
policies. The neoliberal model and the effects of deregulated and global finance not only
question the "European social model" but push sectors of the labour force – with the
youngest and well-qualified being prominent – into unemployment or precarious jobs. the
sociological and potential socio-political significance of these actionsparticularly as a
result of the interconnections that such movements express, both in the sphere of the workplace
and industrial system or whether with broader social structures, with special emphasis on the
middle classes and the threats of 'proletarianization' that presently hang over them. labour
relations of our time are crossed by precariousness and by a new and growing "precariat" which
also gave rise to new social movements and new forms of activism and protest."
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/34149/InTech-Labour_relations_and_social_movements_in_the_21st_century.pdf
'Proletarization' of the declining middle class and downward income pressure for the working
class and middle classhas been accompanied by the creation of a growing chronic debtor class in
the Western World. Symptomatic of the neoliberal globalist world order, the creation of the
debtor class and more broadly social exclusion transcends national borders, ethnicity, gender,
culture, etc. Not just at the central government level, but at the regional and local levels,
public policy faithfully mimics the neoliberal model resulting in greater social exclusion
while there is an effort to convince people that there is no other path to progress although
people were free to search; a dogma similar to clerical intercession as the path to spiritual
salvation. http://www.isreview.org/issues/58/feat-economy.shtml
The neoliberal path to salvation has resulted in a staggering 40% of young adults living
with relatives out of financial necessity. The number has never been greater at any time in
modern US history since the Great Depression, and the situation is not very different for
Europe. Burdened with debt, about half of the unemployed youth are unable to find work and most
that work do so outside the field of their academic training. According to the OECD, youth
unemployment in the US is not confined only to high school dropouts but includes college
graduates. Not just across southern Europe and northern Africa, but in most countries the
neoliberal economy of massive capital concentration has created a new lumpenproletariat that
has no assets and carries debt. Owing to neoliberal policies, personal bankruptcies have risen
sharply in the last four decades across the Western World reflecting the downward social
mobility and deep impact on the chronically indebted during recessionary cycles.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/
; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-young-americans-living-with-their-parents-is-now-the-norm/
; Iain Ramsay, Personal Insolvency in the 21st Century: A Comparative Analysis of the US
and Europe, 2017)
Historically, the safe assumption has been that higher education
is the key to upward social mobility and financial security, regardless of cyclical economic
trends. However, the laws of overproduction apply not only to commodities but to the labor
force, especially as the information revolution continues to chip away at human labor. College
education is hardly a guarantee to upward social mobility, but often a catalyst to descent into
the debtor unemployed class,or minimum wage/seasonalpart time job or several such jobs. The
fate of the college-educated falling into the chronic debtor class is part of a much larger
framework, namely the 'financialization' of the economy that is at the core of neoliberalism. (
Vik Loveday, "Working-class participation, middle-class aspiration? Value, upward mobility
and symbolic indebtedness in higher education."The Sociological Review , September
2014)Beyond the simplisticsuggestion of 'more training' to keep up with tech changes,
the root cause of social exclusion and the chronic debtor class revolves around the
'financialization' of the neoliberal globalist economy around which central banks make monetary
policy. Since the beginning of the Thatcher-Reagan era, advanced capitalist countries led by
the US conducted policy to promote the centrality of financial markets as the core of the
economy. This entails resting more on showing quarterly profit even at the expense of taking on
debt, lower productivity and long-term sustainability, or even breaking a company apart and
dismissing workers because it would add shareholder value. Therefore, the short-term financial
motives and projection of market performance carry far more weight than any other
consideration.
Symptomatic of a combination of deregulation and the evolution of capitalism especially in
core countries from productive to speculative, financialization has transformed the world
economy. Enterprises from insurance companies to brokerage firms and banks like Goldman Sachs
involved in legal and quasi-legal practices, everything from the derivatives market to helping
convert a country's sovereign debt into a surplus while making hefty profits has been part of
the financialization economy that speeds up capital concentration and creates a wider rich-poor
gap. Housing, health, pension systems, health care and personal consumption are all impacted by
financialization that concentrates capital through speculation rather than producing anything
from capital goods to consumer products and services. (Costas Lapavitsas, The
Financialization of Capitalism: 'Profiting without producing'http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13604813.2013.853865
Billionaire speculator George Soros has observed that market speculation not only drives
prices higher, especially of commodities on a world scale, but the inevitability of built-in
booms and busts are disruptive simply because a small group of people have secured a legal
means for capital accumulation. At the outbreak of the US stock market collapse followed by the
'great recession' of 2008, the European Network and Debt and Development (EURODAD)
published an article critical of financialization and its impact on world hunger.
"Do you enjoy rising prices? Everybody talks about commodities – with the
Agriculture Euro Fund you can benefit from the increase in value of the seven most important
agricultural commodities." With this advertisement the Deutsche Bankt tried in spring 2008 to
attract clients for one of its investment funds. At the same time, there were hunger revolts in
Haiti, Cameroon and other developing countries, because many poor could no longer pay the
exploding food prices. In fact, between the end of 2006 and March 2008 the prices for the seven
most important commodities went up by 71 per cent on average, for rice and grain the increase
was 126 per cent. The poor are most hit by the hike in prices. Whereas households in
industrialised countries spend 10 -20 per cent for food, in low-income countries they spend 60
– 80 per cent. As a result, the World Bank forecasts an increase in the number of people
falling below the absolute poverty line by more than 100 million. Furthermore, the price
explosion has negative macroeconomic effects: deterioration of the balance of payment, fuelling
inflation and new debt."http://eurodad.org/uploadedfiles/whats_new/news/food%20speculation%202%20pager%20final.pdf
Someone has to pay for the speculative nature of financialization, and the labor force in
all countries is the first to do so through higher indirect taxes, cuts in social programs and
jobs and wages for the sake of stock performance. Stock markets around which public policy is
conducted have eroded the real economy while molding a culture of financialization of the last
two generations a large percentage of which has been swimming in personal debt reflecting the
debt-ridden financialization economy. Contrary to claims by politicians, business leaders and
the media that the neoliberal system of financialization is all about creating jobs and helping
to diffuse income to the middle class and workers, the only goal of financialization is wealth
concentration while a larger debtor class and social marginalization are the inevitable
results. It is hardly surprising that people world-wide believe the political economy is rigged
by the privileged class to maintain its status and the political class is the facilitator.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/41359-financialization-has-turned-the-global-economy-into-a-house-of-cards-an-interview-with-gerald-epstein
; Costas Lapavitsa, Financialization in Crisis, 2013; Rona Foroohar, Makers and Takers: How
Wall Street Destroyed Main Street , 2016)
Despite efforts by pluralist and populist neoliberals throughout the world to use 'culture
wars' and identity politics as distractionwhile deemphasizing the role of the state as the
catalyst in the neoliberal social contract, the contradictions that the political economy
exposes the truth about the socially unjustsociety that marginalizes the uneducated poor and
college-educated indebted alike.Not to deemphasize the significance of global power
distribution based on the Westphalian nation-state model and regional blocs such as the
European Union, but neoliberals are the ones who insist on the obsolete nation-state that the
international market transcends, thus acknowledging the preeminence of capitalism in the social
contract and the subordination of national sovereignty to international capital and
financialization of the economy. After all, the multinational corporation operating in
different countries is accountable only to its stockholders, not to the nation-state whose role
is to advance corporate interests.
No matter how rightwing populists try to distract people from the real cause of social
exclusion and marginalization by focusing onnationalist rhetoric, marginalized social groups
and Muslim or Mexican legal or illegal immigrantshave no voice in public policy but
financialization speculators do. In an article entitled "The Politics of Public Debt:
Neoliberalism, capitalist development, and the restructuring of the state", Wolfgang
Streeck concludes that neoliberalism's systemic rewards provide a disincentive for capitalists
to abandon financialization in favor of productivity. "Why should the new oligarchs be
interested in their countries' future productive capacities and present democratic stability
if, apparently, they can be rich without it, processing back and forth the synthetic money
produced for them at no cost by a central bank for which the sky is the limit, at each stage
diverting from it hefty fees and unprecedented salaries, bonuses and profits as long as it is
forthcoming -- and then leave their country to its remaining devices and withdraw to some
privately owned island?
An important difference between pluralists and rightwing populists in their approach to the
state's role is that the former advocate for a strong legislative branch and weaker executive,
while rightwing populists want a strong executive and weak legislative. However, both political
camps agree about advancing market hegemony nationally and internationally and both support
policies that benefit international and domestic capital, thus facilitating the convergence of
capitalist class interests across national borders with the symptomatic results of social
exclusion. ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718508000924
; Vicente Navarro, "The Worldwide Class Struggle"https://monthlyreview.org/2006/09/01/the-worldwide-class-struggle/
Regardless of vacuous rhetoric about a weak state resulting from neoliberal policies, the
state in core countries where financialization prevailshas been and remains the catalyst for
class hegemony as has been the case since the nascent stage of capitalism. Both Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan strengthened the corporate welfare state while openly declaring war
against trade unions and by extension on the working class that neoliberals demonize as the
enemy of economic progress. As statistics below illustrate, the debtor class expanded rapidly
after 1980 when the financialization economy took off, reaching its highest point after the
subprime-induced great recession in 2008. Under neoliberal globalist policies, governments
around the world followed theReagan-Thatcher model to facilitate over-accumulation of capital
in the name of competition. (Montgomerie Johnna, Neoliberalism and the Making of the
Subprime Borrower , 2010)
Whether the state is promoting neoliberal policies under a pluralist or authoritarian
models, the neoliberal culture has designated labor as the unspoken enemy, especially organized
labor regardless of whether the ruling parties have co-opted trade unions. In the struggle for
capital accumulation under parasitic financialization policies, the state's view of labor as
the enemy makes social conflict inevitable despite the obvious contradiction that the
'enemy-worker' is both the mass consumer on whom the economy depends for expansion and
development. Despite this contradiction, neoliberals from firms such as Goldman Sachs has many
of its former executives not just in top positions of the US government but world-wide, no
matter who is in power. Neoliberal policy resulting in social exclusion starts with
international finance capitalism hiding behind the pluralist and rightwing populist masks of
politicians desperately vying for power to conduct public policy.
Just as the serfs were aware in the Middle Ages that Lords and Bishops determined the fate
of all down here on earth before God in Heaven had the last word, people today realize the
ubiquitous power of capitalists operating behind the scenes, and in some case as with Trump in
the forefront of public-policy that results in social exclusion and rising inequality in the
name of market fundamentalism promising to deliver the benefits to all people. Neoliberalism
has created a chronicdebtor class that became larger after the 2008 recession and will continue
growing with each economic contracting cycle in decades to come. Despite its efforts to keep
one step ahead of bankruptcy, the identity of the new chronic debtor class rests with the
neoliberal status quo, often with the rightwing populist camp that makes rhetorical overtures
to the frustrated working classthat realize financialization benefits a small percentage of
wealthy individuals.
Personal debt has skyrocketed, reaching $12.58 trillion in the US in 2016, or 80% of GDP.
The irony is that the personal debt level is 2016 was the highest since the great recession of
2008 and it is expected to continue much higher, despite the economic recovery and low
unemployment. Wage stagnation and higher costs of health, housing and education combined with
higher direct and indirect taxes to keep public debt at manageable levels will continue to
drive more people into the debtor class. Although some European countries such as Germany and
France have lower household debt relative to GDP, all advanced and many developing nations have
experienced a sharp rise in personal debt because of deregulation, privatization, and lower
taxes on the wealthy with the burden falling on the mass consumer. Hence the creation of a
permanent debtor class whose fortunes rest on maintaining steady employment and/or additional
part-time employment to meet loan obligations and keep one step ahead of declaring bankruptcy.
Austerity policies imposed either by the government through tight credit in advanced capitalist
countries or IMF loan conditionality in developing and semi-developed nations the result in
either case is lower living standards and a rising debtor class. http://fortune.com/2017/02/19/america-debt-financial-crisis-bubble/
Maurizio Lazzarato's The Making of the Indebted Man: An Essay on the Neoliberal
Condition argues that neoliberalism has created a debtor-creditorrelationship which has
supplanted the worker-capitalist dichotomy, an argument that others focusing on the
financialization of the economy have made as well. Although in Keynesian economics public and
private debt was a stimulant for capitalist growth amid the contracting cycle of the economy,
the neoliberal era created the permanent chronic debtor class that finds it difficult to
extricate itself from that status. Evident after the deep recession of the
subprime-financialization-induced recession in 2008, this issue attracted the attention of some
politicians and political observers who realized theconvergence of the widening debtor class
with the corresponding widening of the rich-poor income gap.
By making both private and public debt, an integral part of the means of production, the
neoliberal system has reshaped social life and social relationships because the entire world
economy is debt-based. Servicing loans entails lower living standards for the working class in
advanced capitalist countries, and even lower in the rest of the world, but it also means
integrating the debtor into the system more closely than at any time in history. While it is
true that throughout the history of civilization human beings from China and India to Europe
have used various systems of credit to transact business (David Graeber, Debt: the First
5000 Years , 2014), no one would suggest reverting back to debt-slavery as part of the
social structure. Yet, neoliberalism has created the 'indebted man' as part of a policythat has
resulted in social asymmetrical power,aiming to speed up capital accumulation and maintain
market hegemony in society while generating greater social exclusion. https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2013/87E0
Ever since the British Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, followed by a number of
other European governments in the early 1800s, there was an assumption that slave labor is
inconsistent with free labor markets as well as with the liberal social contract rooted in
individual freedom. Nevertheless, at the core of neoliberal capitalismUS consumer debt as of
October 2017 stood at $3.8 trillion in a 419 trillion economy. Debt-to-personal income ratio is
at 160%; college student debt runs at approximately $1.5 trillion, with most of that since
2000; mortgage debt has tripled since 1955, with an alarming 8 million people delinquent on
their payments and the foreclosure rate hovering at 4.5% or three times higher than postwar
average; consumer debt has risen 1,700 since 1971 to above $1 trillion, and roughly half of
Americans are carrying monthly credit debt with an average rate of 14%. The debt problem is
hardly better for Europe where a number of countries have a much higher personal debt per
capita than the US.In addition to personal debt, public debt has become a burden on the working
class in so far as neoliberal politicians and the IMF are using as a pretext to impose
austerity conditions, cut entitlements and social programs amid diminished purchasing power
because of inflationary asset values and higher taxes. https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-debt-statistics-causes-and-impact-3305704
; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/business/dealbook/household-debt-united-states.html
While personal debt is often but not always a reflection of a consumerist society, personal
debt encompasses everything from education to health care costs in times when the
digital/artificial intelligence economy is creating a surplus labor force that results in work
instability and asymmetrical social relations. Technology-automation-induced unemployment
driving down living standards creates debtor-workers chasing the technology to keep up with
debt payments in order to survive until the next payment is due. Considering the financial
system backed by a legal framework is established to favor creditors, especially given the
safeguards and protections accorded to creditors in the past four decades, there are many
blatant and overt ways that the state uses to criminalize poverty and debt. In 2015, for
example, Montana became the first state not to take the driver's license of those delinquent on
their student debt, thus decriminalizing debt in this one aspect, though hardly addressing the
larger issue of the underlying causes of debt and social exclusion. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:4b8gtht779
; https://lumpenproletariat.org/tag/neoliberalism/
In an article entitled "Torturing the Poor, German-Style" , Thomas Klikauer
stressed that the weakening of the social welfare state took place under the Social Democratic
Party (SPD)-Green Party coalition (1998-2005) government pursuing pluralist neoliberal
policies. Although historically the SPD had forged a compromise that would permit for the
social inclusion of labor into the institutional mainstream, by the 1990s, theSPD once rooted
in socialism had fully embraced neoliberalism just as the British Labour Party and all
socialist partiers of Europe pursuing social exclusion. Klilauer writes: "Germany's
chancellor [Gerhard] Schröder (SPD) –known as the "Comrade of the Bosses"– no
longer sought to integrate labour into capitalism, at least not the Lumpenproletariat orprecariate. These sections of society are now deliberately driven into mass poverty, joining the
growing number of working poor on a scale not seen in Germany perhaps since the 1930s."https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/20/torturing-the-poor-german-style/
No different than working class people in other countries need more than one job to keep up
with debt and living expenses, so do three million Germans (rising from 150,000 in 2003) that
have the privilege of living in Europe's richest nation. Just as the number of the working poor
has been rising in Germany, so have they across the Western World. Social exclusion and the
expansion of the debtor class in Germany manifested itself in the national elections of 2017
where for the first time since the interwar era a political party carrying the legacy of
Nazism, the Alternative fur Deutchland (AfD), founded by elite ultra-conservatives,
captured 13% of the vote to become third-largest party and giving a voice of neo-Nazis who
default society's neoliberal ills to Muslims and immigrants. Rejecting the link between market
fundamentalism that both the SPD and German conservatives pursued in the last three decades,
neoliberal apologists insist that the AfD merely reflects a Western-wide anti-Muslim trend
unrelated to social exclusion and the policies that have led to Germany's new lumpenproletariat
and working poor.
https://crimethinc.com/2017/10/01/the-rise-of-neo-fascism-in-germany-alternative-fur-deutschland-enters-the-parliament
; https://www.jku.at/icae/content/e319783/e319785/e328125/wp59_ger.pdf
Interestingly, US neoliberal policies also go hand-in-hand with Islamophobia and the war on
terror under both Democrat and Republican administrations, although the pluralist-diversity
neoliberals have been more careful to maintain a politically-correct rhetoric. Just as in
Germany and the rest of Europe, there is a direct correlation in the US between the rise in
social exclusion ofMuslim and non-Muslim immigrants and minorities and the growing trend of
rightwing populism. There is no empirical foundationto arguments that rightwing populism
whether in Germany or the US has no historical roots and it is unconnected both to domestic and
foreign policies. Although the neoliberal framework in which rightwing populism operates and
which creates social exclusion and the new chronic debtor class clashes with neoliberal
pluralism that presents itself as democratic, structural exploitation is built into the social
contract thus generating grassroots opposition.
Even before the great recession of 2008, there were a number of grassrootsgroups against
neoliberal globalism both in advanced and developing nations. Some found expression in social
media, others at the local level focused on the impact of neoliberal policies in the local
community, and still others attempted to alter public policy through cooperation with state
entities and/or international organizations. The most important anti-neoliberal grassroots
organizations have been in Brazil ( Homeless Workers' Movement and Landless Workers'
Movement), South Africa (Abahlali baseMjondolo, Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign,
Landless Peoples' Movement), Mexico (Ejército Zapatista de Liberación
Nacional, EZLN), Haiti (Fanmi Lavalas) and India (Narmada Bachao
Andolan).
The vast majority of organizations claiming to be fighting against neoliberal policies are
appendages either of the pluralist or the rightwing populist political camp both whose goal is
to co-opt the masses as part of their popular base. The anti-globalization movement and by
implication anti-neoliberal includes elements from the entire political spectrum from left to
ultra-right. From India, to Bangladesh, from South Africa to Brazil, and from the US, France,
and the UK, working class resistance to neoliberal globalism has been directly or indirectly
co-opted and often de-politicized by corporate-funded or government-funded NGOs and by
'reformist' local and international organizations.
By promoting measures invariably in the lifestyle domain but also some social welfare and
civil rights issues such as women's rights, renter's rights, etc, the goals of organizations
operating within the neoliberal structure is not social inclusion by altering the social
contract, but sustaining the status quo by eliminating popular opposition through co-optation.
It is hardly a coincidence that the rise of the thousands of NGOs coincided with the rise of
neoliberalism in the 1990s, most operating under the guise of aiding the poor, protecting human
rights and the environment, and safeguarding individualism. Well-funded by corporations,
corporate foundations and governments, NGOs are the equivalent of the 19 th century
missionaries, using their position as ideological preparatory work for Western-imposed
neoliberal policies. http://socialistreview.org.uk/310/friends-poor-or-neo-liberalism
;
https://zeroanthropology.net/2014/08/28/civil-society-ngos-and-saving-the-needy-imperial-neoliberalism/
On the receiving end of corporate and/or government-funded NGOs promoting the neoliberal
agenda globally, some leading grassroots movements that advocate changing the neoliberal status
quo contend that it is better to 'win' on a single issue such as gay rights, abortion, higher
minimum wage, etc. at the cost of co-optation into neoliberal system than to have nothing at
all looking in from the outside. Their assumption is that social exclusion can be mitigated one
issue at a time through reform from within the neoliberal institutional structure that
grassroots organizations deem as the enemy. This is exactly what the pluralist neoliberals are
promoting as well to co-opt grassroots opposition groups.
Partly because governmental and non-governmental organizations posing as reformist have
successfully co-opted grassroots movements often incorporating them into the neoliberal popular
base, popular resistance has not been successful despite social media and cell phones that
permit instant communication. This was certainly the case with the Arab Spring uprisings across
North Africa-Middle East where genuine popular opposition to neoliberal policies of
privatization, deregulation impacting everything from health care toliberalizing rent controls
led to the uprising. In collaboration with the indigenous capitalists, political and military
elites, Western governments directly and through NGOs were able to subvert and then revert to
neoliberal policies once post-Arab Spring regimes took power in the name of 'reform' invariably
equated with neoliberal policies.
https://rs21.org.uk/2014/10/06/adam-hanieh-on-the-gulf-states-neoliberalism-and-liberation-in-the-middle-east/
In "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor" Jim Yong Kim
ed., 2000) contributing authors illustrate in case studies of several countries how the
neoliberal status quo has diminished the welfare of billions of people in developing nations
for the sake of growth that simply translates into even greater wealth concentration and misery
for the world's poor. According to the study: "100 countries have undergone grave economic
decline over the past three decades. Per capita income in these 100 countries is now lower than
it was 10, 15, 20 or in some cases even 30 years ago. In Africa, the average household consumes
20 percent less today than it did 25 years ago. Worldwide, more than 1 billion people saw their
real incomes fall during the period 1980-1993."http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/imf.html
Anti-neoliberal groups assume different forms, depending on the nation's history, social and
political elites, the nature of institutions and the degree it has been impacted by neoliberal
policies that deregulate and eliminate as much of the social safety net as workers will
tolerate. Even the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) that experienced rapid
growth from the early 1990s until the great recession of 2008 have not escaped mass opposition
to neoliberalism precisely because the impact on workers and peasants has been largely
negative.
https://www.cpim.org/views/quarter-century-neo-liberal-economic-policies-unending-distress-and-peasant-resistance
; Juan Pablo Ferrero, Democracy against Neoliberalism in Argentina and Brazil, 2014;
Mimi Abramovitz and Jennifer Zelnick, " Double Jeopardy: The Impact of Neoliberalism on
Care Workers in the United States and South Africa" , http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/HS.40.1.f
Grassroots organizations opposed to policies that further integrate their countries into the
world economy and marginalize the working class have been especially persistent in South
Africa, Brazil, and India. To assuage if not co-opt the masses the BRICS followed a policy mix
that combines neoliberalism, aspects of social welfare and statism. Combined with geopolitical
opposition to US-NATO militarism and interventionism, the BRICS policies were an attempt to
keep not just the national bourgeois loyal but the broader masses by projecting a commitment to
national sovereignty.
In Brazil, India and South Africa internal and external corporate pressure along with US,
EU, and IMF-World Bank pressures have been especially evident to embrace neoliberal policies
and confront grassroots opposition rather than co-opt it at the cost of making concessions to
labor. Considering that the development policies of the BRICS in the last three decades of
neoliberal globalism accommodated domestic and foreign capital and were not geared to advance
living standards for the broader working class and peasantry, grassroots opposition especially
in Brazil, India and South Africa where the state structure is not nearly as powerful as in
Russia and China manifested itself in various organizations.
One of the grassroots organizations managing to keep its autonomy is Brazil's Landless
Workers Movement (MST)skillfully remaining independent of both former President Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff. Although the MST supported some policies of theformer
presidents who presented themselves as champions of labor rather than capital, both Lula and
Rousseff made substantial policy compromises with the neoliberal camp and were eventually
implicated in corruption scandals revealing opportunism behind policy-making. While the record
of their policies on the poor speaks for itself, the Lula-Rousseff era of Partido dos
Trabalhadores was an improvement over previous neoliberal president Fernando Henrique
Cardoso (1995-2003). https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/the-brazilian-crisis/
The MST persisted with the struggle against neoliberal policies that have contributed to
rising GDP heavily concentrated among the national and comprador bourgeoisie and foreign
corporations. Other Latin American grassroots movements have had mixed results not much better
than those in Brazil. Ecuador under president Rafael Correa tried to co-opt the leftby yielding
on some policy issues as did Lula and Rousseff, while pursuing a neoliberal development model
as much as his Brazilian counterparts. With its economy thoroughly integrated into the US
economy, Mexico is a rather unique case where grassroots movements against neoliberalism are
intertwined with the struggle against official corruption and the narco-trade resulting in the
assassination of anti-neoliberal, anti-drug activists. (William Aviles, The Drug War in
Mexico: Hegemony and Global Capitalism ;
Anti-neoliberal resistance in the advanced countries has not manifested itself as it has in
the developing nations through leftist movements such as South Africa's Abahlali baseMjondolo
or Latin American trade unions that stress a working class philosophy of needs rather than the
one of rights linked to middle class property and identity politics. https://roarmag.org/essays/south-africa-marikana-anc-poor/
Popular resistance to neoliberalism in the US has been part of the anti-globalization movement
that includes various groups from environmentalists to anti-IMF-World Bank and anti-militarism
groups.
Although there are some locally based groups like East Harlem-based Justice in El
Barrio representing immigrants and low-income people, there is no national anti-neoliberal
movement. Perhaps because of the war on terror, various anti-establishment pro-social justice
groups assumed the form of bourgeois identity politics of both the Democratic Party and the
Republican where some of the leaders use rightwing populism as an ideological means to push
through neoliberal policies while containing grassroots anger resulting from social exclusion
and institutional exploitation. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/the-legacy-of-anti-globalization
Black Lives Matter revolving around the systemic racism issue and Occupy Wall
Street anti-capitalist group fell within the left orbit of the Democratic Party (Senator
Bernie Sanders) who is an advocate of the pluralist-diversity model, opposes market
fundamentalism,and proposes maintaining some vestiges of the Keynesian welfare state. With the
exception of isolated voices by a handful of academics and some criticsusing social media as a
platform, there is no anti-neoliberal grassroots movement that Democrats or Republicans has not
successfully co-opted. Those refusing to be co-opted are invariably dismissed as everything
from idealists to obstructionists. Certainlythere is nothing in the US like the anti-neoliberal
groups in Brazil, India, Mexico, or South Africa operating autonomously and resisting
co-optation by political parties. The absence of such movements in the US is a testament to the
strong state structure andthe institutional power of the elites in comparison with many
developing nations and even some parts of Europe.
https://www.salon.com/2015/08/15/black_lives_matter_joins_a_long_line_of_protest_movements_that_have_shifted_public_opinion_most_recently_occupy_wall_street/
As an integrated economic bloc, Europe follows uniform neoliberal policies using as leverage
monetary and trade policy but also the considerable EU budget at its disposal for subsidies and
development. A number of European trade unions and leftist popular groups fell into the trap of
following either Socialist or centrist parties which are pluralist neoliberal and defend some
remnants of Keynesianism. Those disillusioned with mainstream Socialist Parties pursue the same
neoliberal policies of social exclusion as the conservatives fell in line behind newly formed
non-Communist reformist parties (PODEMOS in Spain, SYRIZA in Greece, for example) with a
Keynesian platform and socialist rhetoric.
As the government of Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras proved once in power in 2015,
self-baptized 'leftist' parties areleftist in rhetoric only. When it comes to policy they are
as neoliberal as the opposition they criticize; even more dangerous because they have deceived
people to support them as the alternative to neoliberal conservatives. Because grassroots
movements andthe popular base of political parties that promise 'reform' to benefit the masses
are co-opted by centrists, center-left or rightwing political parties, social exclusion becomes
exacerbated leading to disillusionment.
Consequently,people hoping for meaningful change become apathetic or they become angry and
more radicalized often turning to rightwing political parties. Although there is a
long-standing history of mainstream political parties co-opting grassroots movements, under
neoliberalism the goal is to shape them intoan identity politics mold under the pluralist or
rightwing populist camp. Behind the illusion of choice and layers of bourgeois issues ranging
from property rights and individual rights rests a totalitarian system whose goal is popular
compliance. https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/eliane-glaser/elites-right-wing-populism-and-left
;
More subtly and stealthily interwoven into the institutional structure than totalitarian
regimes of the interwar era, neoliberal totalitarianism has succeeded not because of the
rightwing populist political camp but because of the pluralist one that supports both
militarism in foreign affairs and police-state methods at home as a means of maintaining the
social order while projecting the façade of democracy. Whereas the neoliberal
surveillance state retains vestiges of pluralism and the façade of electoral choice, the
police state in interwar Germany and Italy pursued blatant persecution of declared ideological
dogmatism targeting 'enemies of the state' and demanding complete subjugation of citizens to
theregime. Just as people were manipulated in interwar Europeinto accepting the totalitarian
state as desirable and natural, so are many in our time misguided into supporting neoliberal
totalitarianism.
In her book entitled Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution (2015),
Wendy Brown argues that not just in the public sector, but in every sector of society
neoliberal ideology of 'de-democratization' prevails. Extensions of a hierarchical economic
system rather than citizens with civil and human rights guaranteed by a social contract aimed
at the welfare of the collective, human beings are more commoditized today than they were in
the nascent phase of industrial capitalism. The kind of ubiquitous transformation of the
individual's identity with the superstructure and the 'de-democratization' of society operating
under massively concentrated wealth institutionally intertwined with political power in our
contemporary erawas evident in totalitarian countries during the interwar era.
Whereas protest and resistance, freedom of expression and assembly were not permitted by
totalitarian regimes in interwar Europe, they are permitted in our time. However, they are so
marginalized and/or demonized when analyzing critically mainstream institutions and the social
contract under which they operate that they are the stigmatizedas illegitimate opposition.
Permitting freedom of speech and assembly, along with due process and electoral politicsbest
servesneoliberal socioeconomic totalitarianism because its apologists can claim the system
operates in an 'open society'; a term that Karl Popper the ideological father of
neo-conservatism coined to differentiate the West from the former Communist bloc closed
societies.
As Italian journalist Claudio Hallo put it: "If the core of neoliberalism is a natural
fact, as suggested by the ideology already embedded deep within our collective psyche, who can
change it? Can you live without breathing, or stop the succession of days and nights? This is
why Western democracy chooses among the many masks behind which is essentially the same liberal
party. Change is not forbidden, change is impossible. Some consider this feature to be an
insidious form of invisible totalitarianism. " https://www.rt.com/op-edge/171240-global-totalitarianism-change-neoliberalism/
In an essay entitled "The unholy alliance of neoliberalism and postmodernism" ,
Hans van Zon argues that as the Western World'sdominant ideologies since the 1980s,
"undermine the immune system of society, neoliberalism by commercialization of even the
most sacred domains and postmodernism by its super-relativism and refusal to recognize any
hierarchy in value or belief systems."http://www.imavo.be/vmt/13214-van%20Zon%20postmodernism.pdf
. Beyond undermining society's immune system and the open society under capitalism, asHans van
Zon contends, the convergence of these ideologies have contributed to the 'de-democratization'
of society,the creation of illiberal institutions and collective consciousness of conformity to
neoliberal totalitarianism. The success of neoliberalism inculcated into the collective
consciousness is partly because of the long-standing East-West confrontation followed by the
manufactured war on terror. However, it is also true that neoliberal apologists of both the
pluralist and rightwing camp present the social contract as transcending politics because
markets are above states, above society as 'objective' thus they can best determine the social
good on the basis of commoditized value. (Joshua Ramsay, "Neoliberalism as Political
Theology of Chance: the politics of divination."https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201539
An evolutionary course, the 'de-democratization' of society started in postwar US that
imposed transformation policy on the world with the goal of maintaining its economic,
political, military and cultural superpower hegemony justified in the name of anti-Communism.
Transformation policy was at the root of the diffusion of the de-democratization process under
neoliberalism, despite the European origin of the ideology. As it gradually regained its status
in the core of the world economy after the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC) in
1957, northwest Europe followed in the path of the US. http://www.eurstrat.eu/the-european-neoliberal-union/
Ten years before the Treaty of Rome that created the EEC,Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek
gathered a number of scholars in Mont Pelerin where they founded the neoliberal society named
after the Swiss village. They discussed strategies of influencing public policy intended to
efface the Keynesian model on which many societies were reorganized to survive the Great
Depression. Financed by some of Europe's wealthiest families, the Mont Pelerin Society grew of
immense importance after its first meeting which coincided with the anti-labor Taft-Hartley
Act, the Truman Doctrine formalizing the institutionalization of the Cold War, and the Marshall
Plan intended to reintegrate Europe and its colonies and spheres of influence under the aegis
of the US. Helped along by the IMF, World Bank, and the International Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade established in 1947, US transformation policy was designed to shape the world to its own
geopolitical and economic advantage based on a neo-classical macroeconomic and financial
theoretical model on which neoliberal ideology rested. http://fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/
Considering that millionaires and billionaires providefunding for the Mont Pelerin Society
and affiliates, this prototype neoliberal think tank became the intellectual pillar of both the
pluralist and rightwing neoliberal camps by working with 460 think tanks that have
organizations in 96 countries where they influence both centrist and rightwing political
parties. Whether Hillary Clinton's and Emmanuel Macron's pluralist neoliberal globalist version
or Donald Trump's and Narendra Modi's rightwing populist one, the Mont Pelerin Society and
others sharing its ideology and goals exercise preeminent policy influence not on the merit of
its ideas for the welfare of society but because the richest people from rightwing Czech
billionaire Andrej Babisto liberal pluralist billionaireseither support its principles and
benefit from their implementation into policy. (J. Peterson, Revoking the Moral Order: The
Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle , 1999;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate
If the neoliberal social contract is the answer to peoples' prayers world-wide as Hayek's
followers insist, why is there a need on the part of the state, international organizations
including UN agencies, billionaire and millionaire-funded think tanks, educational institutions
and the corporate and state-owned media to convince the public that there is nothing better for
society than massive capital concentration and social exclusion, and social conditions that in
some respects resemble servitude in Medieval Europe? Why do ultra-rightwing Koch brothers and
the Mercer family, among other billionaires and millionaires fromNorth America, Europe, India,
South Korea and Latin America spend so much money to inculcate the neoliberal ideology into the
collective consciousness andto persuade the public to elect neoliberal politicians either of
the pluralist camp or the authoritarian one?
Seventy years after Hayek formed the Mont Leperin Societyto promotea future without
totalitarianism, there are elected neoliberal politicians from both the pluralist and
authoritarian camps with ties to big capital and organized crime amid the blurring lines
between legal and illegal economic activities that encompasses everything from crypto-currency
and insider trading to offshore 'shell corporations' and banks laundering money for drug lords
and wealthy tax evaders. Surrender of popular sovereignty through the social contract now
entails surrender to a class of people who are criminals, not only based on a social justice
criteria but on existing law if it were only applied to them as it does to petty thieves. In
the amoral Machiavellian world of legalized "criminal virtue" in which we live these are the
leaders of society.Indicative of the perversion of values now rooted in atomism and greed, the
media reports with glowingly admiring terms that in 2017 the world's 500 richest people became
richer by $1 trillion, a rise that represents one-third of Africa's GDP and just under
one-fifth of Latin America's. Rather than condemning mal-distribution ofincome considering what
it entails for society, the media and many in the business of propagating for neoliberalism
applaud appropriation within the legal framework of the social contract as a virtue.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/500-richest-people-became-1-trillion-richer-in-2017-mukesh-ambani-tops-indian-list/story-JcNXhH9cCp2pzRopkoFdfL.html
; Bob Brecher, "Neoliberalism and its Threat to Moral Agency" in Virtue and
Economy . ed. Andrius Bielskis and Kelvin Knight, 2015)
Neoliberalism has led to the greater legitimization of activities that would otherwise be
illegal to the degree that the lines between the legitimate economy and organized criminal
activity are blurred reflecting the flexible lines between legally-financed millionaire-backed
elected officials and those with links to organized crime or to illegal campaign contributions
always carrying an illegal quid-pro-quo legalized through public policy. Beyond the usual
tax-haven suspects Panama, Cyprus, Bermuda, Malta, Luxemburg, among othersincluding states such
as Nevada and Wyoming, leaders from former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to President Donald
Trump with reputed ties to organized criminal networks have benefited from the neoliberal
regime that they served.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254953831_Economic_Crime_and_Neoliberal_Modes_of_Government_The_Example_of_the_Mediterranean
)
Self-righteous pluralist neoliberals castigate rightwing billionaires for funding rightwing
politicians. However, there is silence when it comes to the millions amassed by pluralist
neoliberals as the infamous "Panama Papers" revealed in 2016. Despite the institutionalized
kleptocracy, the mediahas indoctrinated the public to accept as 'normal' the converging
interests of the capitalist class and ruling political class just as it has indoctrinated the
public to accept social exclusion, social inequality, and poverty as natural and democratic;
all part of the social contract.( http://revistes.uab.cat/tdevorado/article/view/v2-n1-armao
; Jose Manuel Sanchez Bermudez, The Neoliberal Pattern of Domination: Capital's Reign in
Decline, 2012;
https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberalisms-world-of-corruption-money-laundering-corporate-lobbying-drug-money/5519907
The Future of Neoliberalism
After the great recession of 2008, the future of neoliberalism became the subject of debate
among politicians, journalists and academics. One school of thought was that the great
recession had exposed the flaws in neoliberalism thus marking the beginning of its demise. The
years since 2008 proved that in a twist of irony, the quasi-statist policies of China with its
phenomenal growth have actually been responsible for sustaining neoliberalism globally and not
just because China has been financing US public debt by buying treasuries while the US buys
products made in China. This view holds that neoliberalism will continue to thrive so as long
as China continues its global ascendancy, thus the warm reception to Beijing as the new
globalist hegemonic power after Trump's noise about pursuing economic nationalism within the
neoliberal model. (Barry Eichengreen, Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great
Recession and the Uses and Misuses of History , 2016;
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/23/has-the-global-financial-crisis-challenged-us-power-in-international-finance/
)
China is not pursuing the kind of neoliberal model that exists in the US or the EU, but its
economy is well integrated with the global neoliberal system and operates within those
perimeters despite quasi-statist policies also found in other countries to a lesser degree.
Adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), China's current share of world GDP stands at 16%
and at annual growth above 6% it is expected to reach 20%, by 2020. This in comparison with
only 1.9% in 1979 and it explains why its currency is now among the IMF-recognized reserved
currencies. With about half-a-million foreign companies in China and an average of 12,000 new
companies entering every day, capitalists from all over the world are betting heavily on
China's future as the world's preeminent capitalist core country in the 21 st
century. China will play a determining role in the course of global neoliberalism, and it is
politically willing to accept the US as the military hegemon while Beijing strives for economic
preeminence. Interested in extracting greater profits from China while tempering its race to
number one, Western businesses and governmentshave been pressuring Beijing to become more
immersed in neoliberal policies and eliminate all elements of statism. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-09/22/content_15775312.htm
; https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-overseas/china/foreign-investment
Although the US that has 450,000 troops in 800 foreign military bases in more than 150
countries and uses its military muscle along with 'soft-power' policies including sanctions as
leverage for economic power, many governments and multinational corporations consider Beijing
not Washington as a source of global stability and growth. With China breathing new life into
neoliberalism on the promise of geographic and social convergence, it is fantasy to speculate
that neoliberalism is in decline when in fact it is becoming more forcefully ubiquitous.
However, China like the West that had promised geographic and social convergence in the last
four decades of neoliberalism will not be any more successful in delivering on such promises.
The resultof such policies will continue to be greater polarization and social exclusion and
greater uneven development, with China and multinationals investing in its enterprises becoming
richer while the US will continue to use militarism as leverage to retain global economic
hegemony rapidly eroding from its grip. ( http://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-deployments-may-2017-5
;
http://www.zapruderworld.org/welfare-state-decline-and-rise-neoliberalism-1980s-some-approaches-between-latin-americas-core-and
; Dic Lo, Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization , 2012)
Between China and the US, the world can expect neoliberal globalization to continue under
the pluralist and populist rightwing models in different countries with the two converging and
reflecting the totalitarian essence of the system at its core.Characterized by rapid
development and sluggish growth in Japan and Western core countries, neoliberal globalization
has entailed lack of income convergence between the developed and developing world where uneven
export-oriented growth based on the primary sector keeps developingnations perpetually
dependent and poor. Interestingly, the trend of falling incomes characteristic of the
developing nations from 1980 to 2000 was just as true in Western countries. It was during these
two decades of ascendant neoliberalism that rightwing populist movements began to challenge the
pluralist neoliberal political camp and offering nationally-based neoliberal solutions, further
adding to the system's existing contradictions. (Dic Lo, Alternatives to Neoliberal
Globalization , 2012)
The debate whether the rise of populism or perhaps the faint voices of anti-capitalism will
finally bring about the end of neoliberalism often centers on the digital-biotech revolution
often blamed for exacerbating rather than solving social problems owing to uneven benefits
accruing across social classes. It is somewhat surprising that IMF economists have questioned
the wisdom of pursuing unfettered neoliberalism where there is a trade-off between economic
growth andsocial exclusion owing to growing income inequality. Naturally, the IMF refrains from
self-criticism and it would never suggest that neoliberal globalization that the Fund has been
promoting is responsible for the rise of rightwing populism around the world.
Within the neoliberal camp, pluralist-diversity advocatesare satisfied they have done their
part in the 'fight for democracy' when in fact their stealthy brand of the neoliberal social
contract isin some respects more dangerous than the populist camp which is unapologetically
candid about its pro-big business, pro-monopoly, pro-deregulation anti-social welfare platform.
Shortly after Trump won the presidential election with the help of rightwing billionaires and
disillusioned workers who actually believed that he represented them rather than the
billionaires, an article appearing in the Christian Science Monitor is typical of how
pluralist neoliberals view the global tide of rightwing populism.
"Worldwide, it has been a rough years for democracy. The UK, the United States and
Colombia made critical decisions about their nations' future, and – at least from the
perspective of liberal values and social justice – they decided poorly. Beyond the clear
persistence of racism, sexism and xenophobia in people's decision-making, scholars and pundits
have argued that to understand the results of recent popular votes, we must reflect on
neoliberalism. International capitalism, which has dominated the globe for the past three
decades, has its winners and its losers. And, for many thinkers, the losers have spoken. My
fieldwork in South America has taught me that there are alternative and effective ways to push
back against neoliberalism. These include resistance movements based on pluralism and
alternative forms of social organisation, production and consumption."
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Breakthroughs-Voices/2016/1206/Opposing-neoliberalism-without-right-wing-populism-A-Latin-American-guide
Without analyzing the deeper causes of the global tide of rightwing populism promoting
neoliberalism under an authoritarian political platform, pluralist-diversity neoliberals
continue to promote socioeconomic policies that lead to social exclusion, inequality, and
uneven development as long as they satisfy the cultural-lifestyle and corporate-based
sustainable-development aspects of the social contract.Tolend legitimacy and public acceptance
among those expecting a commitment to pluralism, the neoliberal pluralists embrace the
superficialities and distraction of diversity and political correctness. Ironically, the
political correctness trend started during theReagan administration's second term and served as
a substitute for social justice that the government and the private sector were rapidly eroding
along with the social welfare state and trade union rights. As long as there is'politically
correctness', in public at least so that people feel they are part of a 'civilized' society,
then public policy can continue on the barbaric path of social exclusion, police-state methods,
and greater economic inequality.
The future of neoliberalism includes the inevitability that social exclusion will lead to
social uprisings especially as even some billionaires readily acknowledge the social contract
favors them to the detriment of society. As the voices against systemic exploitation become
louder,the likelihood will increase for authoritarian-police state policies if not regimes
reflecting the neoliberal social contract's ubiquitous stranglehold on society. Although
resistance to neoliberalism will continue to grow, the prospects for a social revolution in
this century overturning the neoliberal order in advanced capitalist countries is highly
unlikely. Twentieth century revolutions succeeded where the state structure was weak and people
recognized that the hierarchical social order was the root cause of the chasm between the
country's vast social exclusion coupled with stagnation vs. its potential for a more inclusive
society where greater social equality and social justice would bean integral part of the social
contract. (Donna L. Chollett, Neoliberalism, Social Exclusion, and Social Movements ,
2013)
Despite everything pointing to the dynamics of a continued neoliberal social contract,
diehard pluralists like British academic Martin Jacques and American economist Joseph Stiglitz
insist there is hope for reformist change. In The Politics of Thatcherism (1983)
Jacques applauded neoliberalism, but during the US presidential election in 2016 he had changed
his mind, predicting neoliberalism's demise. He felt encouraged that other pluralist
neoliberals like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz were voicing their concerns signaling an
interest in the debate about social inequality. In an article entitled "The death of
neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics" , he wrote: "A sure sign of the
declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against
it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by
monetarists and free marketeers."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/21/death-of-neoliberalism-crisis-in-western-politics
Along with Krugman, Stiglitz and others in the pluralist camp favoring a policy mix that
includes Keynesianism,Martin Jacques, Thomas Picketty and others like them around the world
doenjoy some small influence with the pluralist-diversity camp. However, the demise of
neoliberalism will not result from intellectual critiques regardless of the merits. On the
contrary, the neoliberal social contract is solidifying not evolving toward dissolution. This
is largely because the dynamics of the social order continue to favor it and the opposition is
split between ultra-right nationalists, pluralists of varying sorts resting on hope of
restoring Keynesian rationalism in the capitalist system, and the very weak and divided
leftists in just about every country and especially the core ones.
https://theconversation.com/if-we-are-reaching-neoliberal-capitalisms-end-days-what-comes-next-72366
Neoliberalism's inherent contradictions will result in its demise andthe transition into a
new phase of capitalism. Among the most obvious and glaring contradictions is that the ideology
promotes freedom and emancipation when in practice it is a totalitarian system aimed to mold
society and the individual into conformity of its dogmatic market fundamentalism.Another
contradiction is the emphasis of a borderless global market, while capitalists operate within
national borders and are impacted by national policies that often collide at the international
level as the competition intensifies for market share just as was the case in the four decades
before the outbreak of WWI. Adding to the list of contradictions that finds expression the
debate between neoliberal rightwingers and pluralists is the issue of "value-free" market
fundamentalism while at the same time neoliberals conduct policy that has very strong moral
consequences in peoples' lives precisely because of extremely uneven income distribution.
The enigma in neoliberalism's futureis the role of grassroots movements that are in a
position to impact change but have failed thus far to make much impact. Most people embrace the
neoliberal political parties serving the same capitalist class, operating under the illusion of
a messiah politician delivering the promise of salvation either from the pluralist or
authoritarian wing of neoliberalism. The turning point for systemic change emanates from within
the system that fails to serve the vast majority of the people as it is riddled with
contradictions that become more evident and the elites become increasingly contentious about
how to divide the economic pie and how to mobilize popular support behind mainstream political
parties so they can maintain the social order under an unsustainable political economy. At that
juncture, the neoliberal social contract suffersan irrevocable crisis of public confidence on a
mass scale. Regardless under which political regime neoliberalism operates, people will
eventually reject hegemonic cultural indoctrination. A critical mass in society has not reached
this juncture. Nevertheless, social discontinuity is an evolutionary process and the
contradictions in neoliberalism will continue to cause political disruption, economic
disequilibrium and social upheaval.
Jon V. Kofas , Ph.D. – Retired university professor of history – author of ten
academic books and two dozens scholarly articles. Specializing in International Political
economy, Kofas has taught courses and written on US diplomatic history, and the roles of the
World Bank and IMF in the world.
"... Some years ago, I noticed the American media and politicians were sort of going soft (actually mushy) in the brain department, but I was told not to be so judgemental. As the months went by, I saw more and more people saying "they have gone nuts". So, it turns out I am not alone after all. ..."
"... That madness comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of your own opinion but groupthink, and manipulating the language to suit your ambitions (the Orwellism of the US media has been repeatedly pointed at). Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes, you go nuts. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies. All the more when they makes money out of it, which would be the case of all those think tanks and media. ..."
"... War or the threat of war is needed to distract attention from rapidly devolving societal bonds and immense economic inequality. ..."
Some years ago, I noticed the American media and politicians were sort of going soft
(actually mushy) in the brain department, but I was told not to be so judgemental. As the
months went by, I saw more and more people saying "they have gone nuts". So, it turns out I
am not alone after all.
That madness comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of your
own opinion but groupthink, and manipulating the language to suit your ambitions (the
Orwellism of the US media has been repeatedly pointed at). Simply put, you don't know anymore
what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes, you go nuts. The manipulators ends up
caught in their lies. All the more when they makes money out of it, which would be the case
of all those think tanks and media.
One could argue that they are not going mad, that they know full well they are lying, but
I beg to differ: they don't see anymore how ridiculous or how dumb or smart their arguments
are. That would be congruent with a real loss of touch with reality.
One wonders what
they see when they look at themselves in a mirror, a garden variety propagandist or a
fearless anti-Putin crusader?
It is partially tied direct to the economy of the warmongers as trillions of dollars of
new cold war slop is laying on the ground awaiting the MICC hogs. American hegemony is
primarily about stealing the natural resources of helpless countries. Now in control of all
the weak ones, it is time to move to the really big prize: The massive resources of Russia.
They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his
drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin, stopped the
looting .........connect the dots.
Watching the USA these days is like watching a loved one with progressive dementia. I've reached the stage where I think the
sooner it's over the better for everyone.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Being politically Right-Wing, they maintain their position through firm control or compliance of the media, and most often engage in a vast array of lies and deception. These governments tend to be bigoted, if not racist, invariably require "enemies" to achieve public solidarity, and are often supremacist or at least 'exceptional' in their self-assessment. They either believe, or pretend to believe, that they have a license on truth. Large military budgets, the creation and demonisation of fictitious enemies to propagate fear and maintain population control, are all typical characteristics of a fascist regime, as is massive public surveillance.
For the people, these (usually imaginary) enemies provide not only an essential cornerstone of the fascist state but an essential adhesive for their fabricated national identity. Being thus united against a common other, fascism becomes deeply racist by definition and in practice. This demonisation of selected enemies is so intense that pacifism or a lack of belligerence equate to treason, due to sympathising with the enemy or, in today's US lexicon, "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". In the world of fascism, disagreement is treason. George Bush and Dick Cheney: "If you aren't with us, you're against us". US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles: "There are only two kinds of people in the world: Christians who believe in capitalism, and the other kind."
There is one other item pertaining to fascism in America that contains elements of all characteristics we've discussed, one which Hollywood and the media have taken great pains to develop though the ground was already very fertile indeed, and this category is heroes and super-heroes. The US has always glorified war and war heroes, describing American cannon-fodder as "sons of freedom giving their lives for democracy", when they were simply massacring impoverished civilians to enrich the bankers. Eco noted that "In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Fascist ideology heroism is the norm", with the fascist hero impatient to die, but who, in his impatience, "more frequently sends other people to death".
